Office of the Governor
Special Investigators
June 30, 2011
HAND DELIVERED
Governor Nathan Deal
State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30335
Dear Governor Deal :
In January of this year, you continued our appointment as your special
investigators to probe allegations of test tampering and related matters in the
Atlanta Public School System (APS).
We have determined that cheating occurred throughout that school district.
Our investigation found organized and systemic wrongdoing in APS well before
the administration of the 2009 CRCT.
Our investigative report follows. The entire file is available to the
appropriate authorities, as you direct. Please let us know if we may be of further
service.
Very truly yours,
MICHAEEJ. BOWERS ROBERT C WILSON RICHARD L. HYDE
INVESTIGATIVE TEAM
Governor's Special Investigators
Robert E. Wilson
Michael J. Bowers
Richard L. Hyde
Balch and Bingham, LLP
James L. Hollis
Geremy W. Gregory
E. Righton Johnson
Kara M. Engelberger, Paralegal
Deborah Daley, Legal Assistant
Susan G. Hughes, Legal Assistant
Barbara Watson, Legal Assistant
Lydia Rooks, Legal Assistant
Elizabeth A. Jackson, Project Asst.
Wilson, Morton and Downs, LLC
Keri P. Ware
Rosyln S. Mo watt
Linda Weaver, Paralegal
Debbie Morelli, Paralegal
Tracey Duren, Legal Assistant
Cheryl Hicks, Legal Assistant
Georgia Bureau of Investigation
Director Vernon M. Keenan
Inspector John Heinen
Special Agent Heather Strickland (Case Agent)
Kelly Aldrich
Renea Anderson
Elizabeth Bigham
Rocky Bigham
Amy Braswell
Leigh Brooks
Michael Brooks
Tonya Cales
Ryan Carmichael
Derek Coffey
Jerri Lynn Coody
Karen Crowe
Dan Kirk, Assistant Director
Monica Ling
Gregory Linton
Chad Lott
Kendra Lynn
ASAC Jesse Maddox
Lindsay Marchant
Christopher McKeown
Megan Miller
Rhiannon Morgan
Carlos Murray
David Norman
i
Agie George
SAC Denise Norman
Lindsey Giddens
Richard Otwell
Earl Glover
Trebor Randle
Wendell Goodman
Latoria Reynolds
Brian Hargrove
Janet N. Rhodes
James Harris
Evelyn Rodgers
Mary Holder
Deborah Rollins
wesiey riorne
Amanaa Kowien
jj/iigene riowara
iveoecca onaw
Terry Howard
Jamie Skelton
Cecil Hutchins
Kristina Smalley
uayce rngaiis
r am omitn
/\nita ivy
jonatnan opuriocK
Marko Jones
Sara Thomas
Deanna Jury
Lisa Vorrasi
Lawrence Kelly
Cynthia Wahl
Klay Kilcrease
Benny Williams
Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center
Meredith Bailey
Emily Butler
Yvonne Darrell
Heather Davis
Kevin Garrett
Yalanda Greene
Laurie Lane
ASAC Cynthia Ledford
Stephanie Lockridge
Jessica Price
Mark Reinking
Terri St. Romain
Jan Roulain, Department of Corrections
Deanna Scott
Tammy Starckey
Wendi Walker
Keesha Walker
ii
Office of State Inspector General
Elizabeth Pequeno Archer, Esq.
Deron R. Hicks, Esq.
William L. Donaldson, III, CPA, CFE
Deborah Wallace, CIG
District Attorney, Atlanta Judicial Circuit
Hon. Paul Howard
Judge Eleanor L. Ross (Formerly Executive Assistant District Attorney)
Solicitor-General, DeKalb County
Hon. Sherry Boston
Investigator Steve Barresi
Georgia State Patrol
Col. Bill Hitchens
Lt. Col. Mark McDonough
Major Russell Powell
Lt. Mark Hambert
Sgt. Robert Moody
Trooper Christopher Hinkle
Trooper K. Reeder
Trooper Chris Stallings
Trooper Larry Miller
iii
Report Limitations
This report is an overview of the evidence and our findings. It is not
intended to include every detail or fact developed during this investigation. Nor
does it include every relevant document. All notes, documents, transcripts and
interview summaries related to this investigation will be available to you, and the
appropriate authorities for whatever action, if any, is appropriate.
Special Thanks
The investigators wish to express their gratitude to Governors Perdue and
Deal, and their staffs, for their support of our work. We also wish to extend our
appreciation to Ms. Kathleen Mathers, Director of the Governor's Office of
Student Achievement, for her indispensable assistance throughout this
investigation.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 1
Map of Schools 1
Overview 2
The CRCT 6
Interviews and Document Review 7
2009 Erasure Analysis 9
Standard Deviations Chart 10
APS Erasure Analysis 11
Verification of the Erasure Analysis 12
Use of the Erasure Analysis in This Investigation 15
School Summaries 15
Investigative Compilation 17
Parks Middle School 20
Venetian Hills Elementary School 53
Gideons Elementary School 60
Kennedy Middle School 66
F.L. Stanton Elementary School 72
Perkerson Elementary School 77
Connally Elementary School 85
Usher/Collier Heights Elementary School 91
Peyton Forest Elementary School 98
East Lake Elementary School 106
V
Cook Elementary School 117
Woodson Elementary School 125
Scott Elementary School 134
Deerwood Academy 144
Humphries Elementary School 151
Glossary 158
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 2
(School Summaries continued)
Dunbar Elementary School 161
D.H. Stanton Elementary School 168
Finch Elementary School 175
Coan Middle School 185
Dobbs Elementary School 191
Toomer Elementary School 204
Benteen Elementary School 207
Beecher Hills Elementary School 215
Fain Elementary School 219
Slater Elementary School 226
Thomasville Heights Elementary School 233
Fickett Elementary School 242
Hutchinson Elementary School 247
Capitol View Elementary School 251
Towns Elementary School 257
Blalock Elementary School 262
Whitefoord Elementary School 266
Boyd Elementary School 269
West Manor Elementary School 273
Turner Middle School 276
vii
White Elementary School 280
Harper Archer Middle School 282
M. Agnes Jones Elementary School 296
Parkside Elementary School 303
Bethune Elementary School 305
Miles Elementary School 312
Grove Park Elementary School 315
Jackson Elementary School 318
Cleveland Elementary School 320
Alonzo A. Crim Open Campus High School 322
Benjamin S. Carson Preparatory Academy 323
C.W. Hill Elementary School 326
Adamsville Elementary School 327
Cascade Elementary School 328
Heritage Academy Elementary School 329
University Community Academy 330
Williams Elementary School 335
Herndon Elementary School 336
Bolton Academy Elementary School 337
Morningside Elementary School 339
Morris Brandon Elementary School 341
2009 vs. 2010 342
APS Percentage of Classes with Flagged WTR's Chart 345
Glossary 347
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 3
Questions 350
Why Cheating Occurred 350
Targets 350
Culture of Fear 356
Dr. Jackie Boyce 357
Jimmy e Hawkins 359
Michael Milstead 361
Former High-Level Official 361
Patrick Crawford 362
Santhia Curtis 363
Teachers 365
Ethics 365
Early Warnings 366
Allegations of Cover-Up 368
Parks Middle School 368
Investigation at Parks 369
Meeting with Senior Leadership 371
Retaliation by Waller 374
Dramatic Gains at Parks 374
Deerwood Academy 378
Alteration and Destruction of Documents 383
ix
Porter and Reeves Reports 385
Media Request for Porter Report 389
APS Reaction to GOSA 390
Blue Ribbon Commission 392
Test Security 395
KPMG and APS Interviews 396
APS Response to BRC Report 398
The Business Community 401
Findings 402
Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams 406
Michael Pitts 406
Tamara Cotman 407
Veleter Mazyck 408
Millicent Few 408
Dr. Kathy Augustine 408
Dr. Beverly Hall 409
Glossary 411
X
■
Map of Schools
Legend
School Locations
i Elementary
■ Middle
• High
| SRT 1
SRT2
SRT 3
SRT 4
Jackson ■
Jackson Ann
Brandon Anns*
Sinill i K Ann ex
.n f^agine-Wesle?
Hui-hinsnn Lleveland Avenue
Humphries
Long SButfrAllynLy
Heritage Academy
Atlanta Public Schools Facility Locations
2009-2010
1
OVERVIEW
Thousands of school children were harmed by widespread cheating in the
Atlanta Public School System (APS). In 30 schools, educators confessed to
cheating. We found cheating on the 2009 Criterion-Referenced Competency Test
(CRCT) in 44 of the 56 schools (78.6%) we examined, and uncovered organized
and systemic misconduct within the district as far back as 2001. Superintendent
Beverly Hall and her senior staff knew, or should have known, that cheating and
other offenses were occurring. Many of the accolades, and much of the praise,
received by APS over the last decade were ill-gotten.
We identified 178 educators as being involved in cheating. Of these, 82
confessed. Thirty-eight of the 178 were principals, from two-thirds of the schools
we examined. The 2009 erasure analysis suggests that there were far more
educators involved in cheating, and other improper conduct, than we were able to
establish sufficiently to identify by name in this report.
A culture of fear and a conspiracy of silence infected this school system, and
kept many teachers from speaking freely about misconduct. From the onset of this
investigation, we were confronted by a pattern of interference by top APS
leadership in our attempt to gather evidence. These actions delayed the completion
of this inquiry and hindered the truth-seeking process.
2
The APS General Counsel told us that one of her main duties was to provide
Superintendent Hall with "deniability." Her aim was to insulate Dr. Hall from the
burden of responsibility for making difficult decisions. This veil of deniability at
the school level was aptly illustrated by long-time Gideons Elementary principal
Armstead Salters, who told his teachers: "If anyone asks you anything about this,
just tell them you don't know . . . just stick to the story and it will go away."
There was a failure of leadership throughout APS with regard to the ethical
administration of the 2009 CRCT. There are two main reasons for this failure.
Dr. Hall's insular style and her isolation from the rank-and-file was a major factor.
In addition, Dr. Hall and her top managers refused to accept responsibility for
anything other than success. As Dr. Hall's Chief of Staff, Sharron Pitts, explained
to us, "nobody ever wants to take responsibility for anything" in APS.
Deputy Superintendent Kathy Augustine oversaw daily classroom
instruction, and operated as the de facto second-in-command. She told us that she
should not be held responsible for cheating that took place in APS classrooms
under her authority.
While this may be an appropriate defense to criminal charges, it is an absurd
leadership concept. Dr. Hall and her senior cabinet accepted accolades when those
below them performed well, but they wanted none of the burdens of failure.
3
The first person to report cheating to us provided the same information
months earlier to his superiors, only to have the wrongdoers quickly exonerated
while he was reprimanded. This educator made these allegations known to the
proper officials inside of APS. However, the district improperly handled this
complaint in violation of its own policies. That inquiry was brought to a swift, and
predictable, conclusion. The guilty went free; the whistle-blower was punished.
This was not an isolated occurrence and was illustrative of the culture of fear and
intimidation which promoted a code of silence.
The Office of Internal Resolution (OIR) was responsible for internal
investigations, but lacked independence and gave those who wanted to report
improper activity little confidence that complaints would be objectively, fairly and
competently investigated.
As early as 2006, APS officials improperly manipulated and hid information
relating to CRCT administration, and illegally altered documents related to that
test. The school district often failed to comply with Georgia's open records laws,
withheld public information and gave false data to an agency of this state.
Dr. Hall stated publicly, and several times, that she would "fully cooperate"
with our efforts. However, the district was slow in producing documents and
claimed legal exemptions where none existed.
4
All of this was done to keep from public view, and this inquiry, information
which might raise doubts about the validity of the 2009 CRCT scores, and other
indicators of success in the classroom.
Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) expert, Dr. John Fremer, wrote an op-ed
piece for The Atlanta Journal - Constitution (AJC) which said: "...[wjholesale
organized cheating in some Atlanta Public Schools occurred and must be
addressed." (Ex. 1). Experts who assisted us expressed similar sentiments in
saying that cheating is the only plausible explanation for the abnormally high
standard deviations shown in the erasure analysis.
One of the first tasks we undertook was to test the validity of the Governor's
Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) erasure analysis. This was done with the
assistance of our expert during a visit to the test facility of CTB McGraw-Hill.
The erasure analysis is, without question, accurate and reliable.
The statistics are astounding. For example, of the approximately 1,800 non-
APS elementary and middle schools in Georgia where the 2009 CRCT was given,
54 schools were flagged with more than 20% of their classes being greater than
three standard deviations outside the state norm on wrong-to-right erasures. Yet in
the 90 elementary and middle schools in the APS system where the 2009 CRCT
was given, 52 schools were flagged with more than 20% of their classes being
greater than three standard deviations outside the norm. Incredibly, almost half of
5
the schools flagged for being greater than three standard deviations outside of the
norm in our state were from the Atlanta Public School System.
THE CRCT
The CRCT is a multiple choice examination given annually to all public
school students in Georgia. There are five subject areas that are tested: reading;
English/language arts; math; social studies and science. Students are scored as
"meets standards," "exceeds standards" or "does not meet standards." The CRCT
is considered an important test because its results help determine whether a school
makes "Annual Yearly Progress" (AYP) as required by the federal No Child Left
Behind Act. Every elementary and middle school within a school district must
administer the CRCT at the same time and in the same manner, during a nine-day
window. During the first five days, a different subject area is tested each day. The
last four days of the window are used for make-up testing.
Georgia law requires that the test be administered under tightly-controlled
conditions. The test materials are delivered to the individual schools several days
before the test begins. Each school designates a certified educator to be
responsible for test administration. In APS, this person is known as the testing
coordinator, who must ensure that the test is administered according to the test
protocols. But the principal bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring how the test
is administered.
6
Teachers receive training on test administration using procedures that
specifically set forth how the test must be given. Any deviation from the test
protocols is prohibited.
hi first and second grade, teachers read the test questions aloud and students
answer questions in the test booklet by marking the correct answer. (Ex. 2).
Teachers must read each question only twice, with no voice inflection that could
suggest the answer. Third through eighth graders read the test questions for
themselves and answer questions on a separate Scantron® sheet by filling in the
appropriate bubble by pencil. (Ex. 3). Each test section is timed and contains
between forty and sixty questions. Only special education students with specified
accommodations may have variances in the test administration.
INTERVIEWS AND DOCUMENT REVIEW
On August 26, 2010, Governor Sonny Perdue appointed us as his Special
Investigators to investigate alleged test tampering, and related matters, in the
Atlanta Public School System. (Ex. 4). This order was augmented by oral
directives that we were to:
• Find the truth with regard to cheating, if any, on the 2009
CRCT within APS;
• Assist state regulators in sanctioning educators who participated
in cheating;
• Submit information to prosecuting authorities regarding
criminal conduct, if discovered.
7
Governor Perdue emphasized that our mandate was to find the truth. He
also stressed that teachers who were honest in their testimony should not be
criminally prosecuted. You restated these directives to us upon assuming office.
(Ex. 5).
hi order to gain an understanding of the overall structure of APS, how the
testing process works, the relevant players, and what documents would be needed,
we first conducted benchmark interviews of top officials in the district, including
Dr. Hall, Dr. Augustine, Dr. Cari Ryan, and Dr. Alexis Kirijan. Most of these
officials were interviewed again toward the end of this investigation.
We interviewed the teachers and administrators at each of the flagged
schools, as well as current and former executive directors of each school reform
team (SRT). The SRT executive directors function as assistant superintendents,
assigned to one of four geographic areas of elementary and middle schools for the
district. They oversee principals at the schools within their SRT and report directly
to Dr. Kathy Augustine.
hi addition to interviews of district personnel, we also spoke with scores of
individuals from outside the system, who participated in the BRC investigation or
served as consultants. We conducted over 2,1 00 interviews and reviewed in excess
of 800,000 documents.
8
2009 ERASURE ANALYSIS
In February 2010, the Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA)
produced an erasure analysis performed by CTB McGraw-Hill on the spring 2009
CRCT. The results of this analysis raised the possibility of testing irregularities.
The GOSA erasure analysis, which was performed on the test answer documents
for every elementary and middle school student in the State of Georgia, compared
the number of wrong-to-right (WTR) erasures by grade, test subject and class to
the average number of WTR erasures state-wide for the corresponding grade and
test subject. The results of the erasure analysis showed that in 35 Georgia school
districts, including APS, a significant number of classes had WTR erasures that
were dramatically and disconcertingly higher than the state average.
Specifically, CTB McGraw-Hill determined that if a class had WTR erasures
more than three standard deviations above the expected norm (i.e., the state
average), it was almost statistically impossible for such a high number of WTR
erasures to have occurred without some external force operating to cause it. For
example, at three standard deviations there is only a one in 370 chance that the
high erasures occurred by coincidence and at five standard deviations there is only
a one in 1.7 million chance. By seven standard deviations, it is virtually
impossible — only a one in 390 billion chance — that such a high number of WTR
erasures occurred randomly.
9
STANDARD DEVIATIONS CHART
Standard Deviations
Chance of Occurring
Randomly
3
1/370
4
1 / 15,788
5
1 / 1,774,278
6
1 / 560,800,000
7
1 7390,600,000,000
In other words, some external force operated to cause the WTR erasures.
Although a WTR erasure analysis does not indicate that the external force was
cheating, it does suggest that something other than normal student erasing
occurred.
Thirty-five Georgia districts had schools with more than five percent of the
classes flagged for standard deviations higher than three. (Ex. 6). The GOSA
study grouped schools into four categories based on the percentage of flagged
classrooms: "clear of concern"; "minimal concern"; "moderate concern"; and
"severe concern." Eighty-percent of Georgia's elementary and middle schools fell
into the "clear of concern" category, 10% fell into "minimal concern," 6% fell into
"moderate concern," and 4% fell into the "severe concern" category.
10
APS ERASURE ANALYSIS
The percentage of flagged classes in APS far exceeded any other district in
Georgia. Of the middle and elementary schools 51% fell into the "severe concern"
category. Of the "moderate concern," were 18%, and 8% were of "minimal
concern." (Ex. 7). APS accounts for over half of the "severe" category schools in
the state. Parks Middle School, with 89.5% of its classes flagged, led the state in
percentage of classes flagged for WTR erasures, with Gideons Elementary and
Peyton Forest Elementary not far behind at 88.4% and 86.1%, respectively.
The erasure analysis only flagged classes that departed from the norm by
three or more standard deviations. But many classes in APS had standard
deviations ranging from the 20's to the 50's. (Ex. 8). One classroom was at 53. It
is virtually impossible for so many WTR erasures to occur without human
intervention.
Amazingly, many APS teachers had high WTR erasures in all three subject
areas — English/language arts, reading and math. Not only did numerous teachers
do something that was virtually impossible one time, but did it three times in a
row. Even more amazing, several teachers in the same school did this multiple
times.
Dr. Gregory Cizek, our expert, analogized the chances of this occurring to
the Georgia Dome being filled to capacity, with every person in the Dome being
11
seven feet tall. Dr. John Fremer of Caveon Test Security, hired by the BRC to
conduct its own statistical analysis, described this in terms of flipping two coins
three times in a row, and the coins land on their edge, perfectly balanced, one on
top of the other, all three times.
VERIFICATION OF THE ERASURE ANALYSIS
We verified that the results of the erasure analysis were accurate and
consistent. This study served as a guide to identify where cheating may have
occurred, and it established the foundation for this investigation. We took the
following steps to ensure its validity:
• Retained an expert to review the GOSA erasure analysis;
• Inspected the CTB McGraw-Hill facility and interviewed
several members of the staff who were involved in grading the
CRCT and conducting the erasure analysis;
• Observed the answer document scanning process;
• Compared the results of the erasure analysis to the results of a
reanalysis of selected and random test documents;
• Manually reviewed thousands of answer sheets and compared
them to the results of the original erasure analysis; and,
• Interviewed experts in the educational testing and statistics
field.
Based on these efforts, we concluded that the GOSA erasure analysis is
accurate, reproducible, and reliable.
12
We retained Gregory J. Cizek, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina,
who is one of the foremost experts on educational testing and statistics in the
nation. Dr. Cizek is a Professor of Educational Measurement and Evaluation in the
School of Education at UNC. He currently serves as the President of the National
Council on Measurement in Education. (Ex. 9). After Cizek reviewed the erasure
analysis, he accompanied us to the CTB McGraw-Hill facility. We toured the CTB
McGraw-Hill plant, observed the answer documents being re-scanned and
interviewed CTB McGraw-Hill's statistician and other personnel familiar with the
scanning process.
CTB McGraw-Hill's high-optical scanner read the students' test documents
and recorded answers and erasures for each section. A computer used special
software to determine when an answer was changed from wrong-to-right (WTR),
right-to-wrong (RTW), or wrong-to-wrong (WTW). This data reflected the total
number of erasures and the total number of WTR changes for each student in each
subject area in Georgia.
Next, CTB McGraw-Hill employed a statistical test to flag excessive
numbers of WTR erasures in a class. (Ex. 10). The average number of WTR
erasures statewide in a given grade and subject were compared to the number of
WTR erasures in a specific class within the APS district. The proximity of
erasures to the expected norm is expressed in terms of standard deviations. CTB
13
McGraw-Hill flagged classes that were three or more standard deviations above the
state average.
GOSA used a conservative criterion of three standard deviations. This was
done to insure that only the most severe and questionable erasures were identified.
We interviewed company officials and manually reviewed answer
documents, counted erasures, and compared our count with the computer's
analysis. This manual count of erasures revealed more changes than the computer
scanning process. The computer is not as stringent as the human eye. The
difference is not because the scanner missed erasures, but because it is calibrated to
give the benefit of the doubt to a certain level before it considers a lighter mark.
To confirm the study results, we asked that CTB McGraw-Hill re-scan both
random and selected tests. The results of the re-scanned answer documents were
consistent with the results of the original erasure analysis.
We interviewed the two individuals from Caveon Test Security who used
the GOSA erasure data and conducted their own analysis on behalf of the BRC.
Neither disputed the results of the GOSA study. The top 12 schools flagged under
their "Caveon Index" were identical to the highest flagged schools under the
GOSA analysis.
14
USE OF THE ERASURE ANALYSIS IN THIS INVESTIGATION
The erasure data helped us prioritize interviews of educators at the schools
to allow us to efficiently focus our efforts. We also used this information when we
questioned teachers and administrators, since they had not been provided with this
data by anyone in the district.
We compared the student scores with other evidence to better understand
what occurred in classrooms. The student data listed every student in APS and set
forth how many total erasures, versus how many WTR erasures, appeared on that
student's answer document. This information provided an additional perspective
for analyzing erasures.
When student-level data revealed a large number of students within a single
class with high erasures that changed from wrong to right 70%- 100% of the time,
such information raised an additional suspicion that someone other than the
students could be changing answers.
SCHOOL SUMMARIES
Investigative summaries of the 56 schools we examined follow this section.
We found that 178 teachers and principals were involved in cheating in 44 schools.
Sixty-eight percent of the principals of the 56 schools were responsible for
cheating, and six of those refused to answer all questions we asked them, including
about their involvement in cheating. These six pled the Fifth Amendment, which
15
for civil law purposes, such as a Georgia Professional Standards Commission
(PSC) proceeding, is an implied admission.
An investigative compilation shows a breakdown of those found cheating by
each school.
16
INVESTIGATIVE COMPILATION
School
Confessions
Other
Total
Parks Middle
7
6 (hicl. Prin.).
13
Venetian Hills Elementary
6
2 (Incl. Prin.).
8
Gideons Elementary
12 (Incl. Prin.).
0
12
Kennedy Middle
1
3 (Incl. Prin.).
4
FL Stanton Elementary
— d
1
2 (Incl. Prin.).
3
Perkerson Elementary
0
3 (Incl. Prin.).
3
Connally Elementary
1
1 (Incl. Prin.).
2
Usher Elementary
3
2 (Incl. Prin.).
5
Peyton Forest Elementary
0
10 (Incl. Prin.).
10
East Lake Elementary
_ d
0
2 (Incl. Prin.).
2
Cook Elementary
2
4 (Incl. Prin.).
6
Woodson Elementary
2
3 (Incl. Prin.).
5
Scott Elementary
0
3 (Incl. Prin.).
3
Deerwood Academy
1
3 (Incl. Prin.).
4
Humphries Elementary
2
3 (Incl. Prin.).
5
Dunbar Elementary
1
7 (Incl. Prin.).
8
DH Stanton Elementary
0
2 (Incl. Prin.).
2
Finch Elementary
3
6 (hicl. Prin.).
9
Coan Middle
1
2 (hicl. Prin.).
3
Dobbs Elementary
4
2 (Incl. Prin.).
6
Toomer Elementary
3 (Incl. Prin.).
1
4
Benteen Elementary
0
3 (Incl. Prin.).
3
Beecher Hills Elementary
3
1 (hicl. Prin.).
4
Fain Elementary
2
2 (Incl. Prin.).
4
Slater Elementary
2
3 (Incl. Prin.).
5
Thomasville Heights Elementary
2
2 (hicl. Prin.).
4
Fickett Elementary
2
2 (Incl. Prin.).
4
Hutchinson Elementary
1
1 (Incl. Prin.).
2
Capitol View Elementary
0
1 (hicl. Prin.).
I
Towns Elementary
0
1 (Incl. Prin.).
I
Blalock Elementary
0
1 (Incl. Prin.).
I
Whitefoord Elementary
0
1 (hicl. Prin.).
I
Boyd Elementary
0
1 (hicl. Prin.).
i
West Manor Elementary
0
1 (Incl. Prin.).
i
Turner Middle
0
1 (Incl. Prin.).
I
White Elementary
0
1 (hicl. Prin.).
i
Harper Archer Middle
0
0
0
MA Jones Elementary
6
1
7
Parkside Elementary
3
0
3
Bethune Elementary
2
1 (Incl. Prin.).
3
Miles Elementary
2
1
3
Grove Park Elementary
2
0
2
Jackson Elementary
2
0
2
Cleveland Elementary
1
0
1
Crim Open Campus
0
0
0
Benjamin Carson Middle
0
0
0
CW Hill Elementary
0
0
0
Adamsville Elementary
0
0
0
Cascade Elementary
0
0
0
Heritage Elementary
0
0
0
University Community Academy
2
4 (Incl. Prin.).
6
Williams Elementary
0
0
0
Herndon Elementary
0
0
0
Bolton Elementary
0
0
0
Morningside Elementary
0
0
0
Morris Brandon Elementary
0
0
0
TOTAL
82
96
178
17
For each school we have prepared analyses of relevant witness interviews,
statistical data and other materials. Listed below is some of the misconduct found
in the school summaries. What is revealed is outrageous:
• Teachers and administrators erased students' incorrect answers
after the test was given and filled in the correct answers;
• The changing of answers by teachers and administrators was, in
some cases, so sophisticated that plastic transparency answer
sheets were created to make changing the test answer sheets
easier;
• Changing of answers was often done at weekend gatherings,
and in at least one instance at a teacher's home in Douglas
County, Georgia;
• A principal forced a teacher with low CRCT scores to crawl
under a table at a faculty meeting;
• Teachers arranged classroom seating for tests so that lower
performing children could cheat off the higher scoring students;
• Children were denied special educational assistance because
their falsely-reported CRCT scores were too high;
• Students requested that they be assigned to a certain teacher
because that educator was said to cheat;
• First and second grade teachers used voice inflection while
reading the test to identify the answer;
• Teachers pointed to the correct answer while standing at
students' desks;
• Teachers gave the answers aloud to students;
• Some teachers allowed students to change the previous day's
incorrect responses after giving them correct answers;
• Teachers looked ahead to discuss the next day's questions;
18
• In one classroom a student sat under his desk and refused to
take the test. This child passed.
Following the school summaries is a comparison between the 2009 and 2010
erasure analyses. There was a dramatic drop in the percentage of flagged
classrooms between these years. This was only after media attention and the state
sent representatives to some district schools.
19
PARKS MIDDLE SCHOOL
1090 Windsor Street SW Principal: Christopher Waller SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30310 Testing Coordinator: Dr. Alfred Kiel
I INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Parks Middle School in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and
2010. Fifty-nine people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Seven teachers
confessed to cheating. Cheating at Parks is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms,
confessions and witness testimony. The cheating started when Principal Christopher Waller
began at Parks and recruited two teachers to change answers in 2006. As the years progressed,
more teachers got involved. In all years, the cheating was organized and facilitated by Principal
Waller and Success-For-All Facilitator Sandra Ward. Assistant Principal Gregory Reid also
participated. The cheating was reflected in the statistically improbable testing gains and
extremely high numbers of flagged classrooms in 2009 for high wrong-to-right erasures. Parks
had the highest percentage of flagged classrooms in the State of Georgia. Teachers gave students
the answers to the tests, organized changing "parties" where the answer sheets were changed,
and illegally accessed the test booklets before testing. The cheating was conducted covertly so
that Testing Coordinator Dr. Alfred Kiel would not discover it.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
89.5
4
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
51
3
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
19(18)
3(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
11.9
3.2
High Flagged Standard Deviation
29.4
3.4
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.4
3.1
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
Christopher Waller became the principal of Parks in the fall of 2005. Waller directed
cheating the first year he presided over CRCT testing in 2006. He gave teacher Damany Lewis a
key to the room where the tests were kept. Lewis removed the plastic wrap from the test
booklets and photocopied the tests. Lewis gave the copies to other teachers, who used the
advance copies to give students the answers. A select group of teachers that Waller organized
and trusted would change wrong answers to right answers each day during the week of testing.
There is also evidence that Waller directed cheating on the secured writing tests.
Each year Principal Waller and his crew brought more teachers into the cheating
conspiracy. Waller, Gregory Reid, or Sandra Ward went to these teachers' classrooms and told
20
them it was "time to go." The teachers understood that "time to go" meant they were to go to the
room where the tests were kept and change answers.
Dr. Alfred Kiel was the testing coordinator for this school. He would not allow cheating
so Principal Waller orchestrated Kiel's absence from the school building so the cheating could
take place. On one occasion in 2009, Principal Waller took Kiel out for a "retirement lunch." In
another year, Principal Waller scheduled an impromptu after-school dance so that the teachers
could stay late in the afternoon and cheat without raising suspicion. Kiel once noticed that things
in his office had been disturbed while he was out and became angry. After that occasion, teacher
Damany Lewis took pictures of Kiel's office before he altered the tests so that everything would
be put back in exactly the same place so as not to raise Kiel's suspicions. No one implicated
Kiel except Principal Waller.
B. APS' Knowledge of Cheating
District Leadership knew Principal Waller was cheating. See discussion of Reginal
Dukes ' investigation into Parks Middle School in Volume Three of this Report. Dr. Beverly Hall,
Dr. Kathy Augustine, Millicent Few, and others were aware of Dukes' investigation and
findings. No action was taken against Principal Waller.
Dr. Hall also should have known Waller was cheating at Parks because once he became
principal, the school immediately made dramatic gains on the CRCT and other tests. For
example, between the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, eighth graders meeting or
exceeding standards in reading increased by 31 percentage points, from 50% to 81%. The
percentage of students meeting and exceeding standards in English/language arts increased by 27
percentage points, from 54% to 81%. In math, the percentage of eighth graders who met or
exceeded the standards increased from 24% to 86%. The percentage of students exceeding
expectations went from 1% to 46%, a 45 point increase. In 2006-2007, one year after Dukes'
investigation into Parks, the school met 100% of targets set by APS.
There is no evidence that APS management instituted any additional investigations into
Parks despite the improbable gains in scores and Dukes' conclusion that cheating occurred on the
eighth grade writing test in 2006. Instead, APS publicly touted Waller and Parks Middle School
for its achievements. Dr. Beverly Hall praised Principal Waller's performance, saying, "You
have to find someone who is able to go in and, while not being a dictator, gets people's attention
and articulates a vision and mission in a way that people want to be on board with it . . . ." A
copy of Sarah Torian's Beating the Odds at Atlanta's Parks Middle School is included as
Attachment A.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Damany Lewis (Teacher)
Damany Lewis was the first teacher to assist Principal Waller in cheating. He admitted to
cheating in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In 2006, Waller asked Lewis, "Do you think you could
get into something undetected?" Lewis was not sure what Waller meant, but said yes. A few
days later, Lewis was summoned to the main office where he found Principal Waller and Sandra
Ward with the CRCT booklets. Principal Waller looked at Lewis and then immediately looked
21
at the test booklets. Lewis then knew what Principal Waller was asking him to "get into
undetected" — the test booklets. Lewis found a key in his desk drawer that opened the room
where the tests were kept. Lewis used a razor blade to open the plastic wrapping around the test
booklets, copied the test for each grade, and resealed the wrapping using a lighter to melt the
plastic. Once Lewis copied the booklets, he placed a copy of the social studies test in Damien
Northern's car and a copy of the reading and language arts test in Dorothea Wilson's car.
After the students had taken the test, Lewis changed answers. On one occasion, Crystal
Draper came to the room where Lewis was erasing. Lewis assumed Waller sent her. In 2006,
Lewis and Draper worked together to change answers. Each year more teachers would assist in
the cheating. In 2007 or 2008, Lewis, Draper, and Damien Northern changed answers. Teachers
Adrienne Powell, Kimberly Oden, and Latasha Smiley may have also assisted that year. In
2009, the group of cheating teachers grew again. The following teachers were present in the
room where the tests were being erased: Crystal Draper, Damien Northern, Starlette Mitchell,
Dorothea Wilson, Adrienne Powell and Kimberly Oden. Principal Waller always knew when
and where Lewis and the others were altering tests.
Lewis spent one to two hours per day altering tests. At Waller's direction, Lewis cheated
every year that Waller was Principal. Waller gave Lewis access to the test booklets before
testing started and Lewis made copies of the tests, handed them out and changed answers.
During testing week, Principal Waller, Ward, or Reid would tell Lewis to go to the main office.
Principal Waller would tell Lewis, "Do what you do." Lewis would get the tests and erase
answers.
The teachers only changed answers when Testing Coordinator Kiel was out of the school.
In 2007, Kiel noticed things in his office were in a different place than where he had left them.
After that, Lewis started taking the tests from Kiel's office into the room next door to change
answers. Lewis either marked where the tests had been or took pictures of the undisturbed
office, so he could put everything back without Kiel noticing.
2. Crystal Draper (Teacher)
Crystal Draper admitted cheating in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. Draper first changed
tests in 2006 and continued through 2009. Gregory Reid usually told her where to go and alter
the answer sheets. There was one year when Principal Waller said, "The bins [containing the
tests] are in such-and-such room."
In 2009, Reid sent Draper to Kiel's office. Draper erased answers in the office with
Damany Lewis, Damien Northern and Dorothea Wilson. While Draper was erasing answers,
Sandra Ward and Starlette Mitchell came into the room with a blue cooler, put sixth grade tests
in the container, and left the room with the cooler and tests. That same day, Kimberly Simpson,
who had not participated in previous years, knocked on the door to Kiel's office. Because
Simpson had not helped cheat before, the teachers were not comfortable with Simpson seeing
them change answers, so they did not answer the door.
Principal Waller directed Draper to cheat. Tn 2006, Principal Waller told her to go to the
room where the tests were kept and change wrong answers to right answers. Principal Waller
22
would often walk by Draper and make comments such as, "I need those numbers." She said that
teachers were afraid of Principal Waller because he would punish people if they did not do what
he asked.
3. Damien Northern (Teacher)
Damien Northern confessed to cheating in 2008 and 2009 and possibly in 2007 as well.
Members of the Parks Middle School faculty cheated the entire time Waller was principal.
Waller recruited Damany Lewis and Crystal Draper and directed them to get others involved. In
2007 or 2008, Waller told Lewis to recruit Northern because Lewis needed help. The teachers
already cheating included: Damany Lewis, Crystal Draper, Starlette Mitchell, and Dorothea
Wilson.
In 2009, Sandra Ward sent Northern to Kiel's office where the tests were kept. When he
arrived, he felt there were too many people in the room. He recalls that Starlette Mitchell,
Charles Mitchell, Wilson, Draper, Adrienne Powell, and Latasha Smiley were there. Northern
did not change answers that year because he did not trust everyone present.
One year Principal Waller was standing directly outside the door of the room while they
were changing answers.
On another occasion, Northern found a copy of the test questions in his box. He does not
know who put them there.
Northern believes cheating goes on all over the district. He has had students that cannot
read yet scored very high on the reading portion of the CRCT.
Ward asked Lewis, Northern, Wilson, and Mitchell for copies of the Governor's
subpoenas they received with regard to this investigation. Ward told them that she would
provide them with an attorney.
4. Latasha Smiley (Teacher)
Latasha Smiley admits to cheating in 2009. Francesca Thompson-Flagle, a PEC teacher,
gave Smiley a copy of the 2009 CRCT. The copy was difficult to read. Later that day, Gregory
Reid told Smiley that Damany Lewis had a "gift" for her. Smiley found a manila envelope
containing a legible copy of the tests on her desk. During the test, Smiley improperly gave
students the correct answers.
One afternoon, Lewis told Smiley to come with him. They went to Kiel's office and
Smiley erased answers with the other teachers in the room. After the testing period was
complete, Lewis came to Smiley' s classroom and told her to come with him. They went together
to Kiel's office where Lewis took pictures of the room so that he could place everything back in
its original place after they changed the tests. Smiley erased answers with the other teachers in
the room.
Principal Waller told Smiley to let him know if anyone contacted her regarding this
investigation.
23
5. Charles Mitchell (Teacher)
Charles Mitchell confessed to cheating in 2009. In 2008, he started receiving copies of
various tests, including the CRCT and APS benchmark assessments, in advance of their
administration. He reviewed the tests and made sure he covered all of the material with his
students.
In 2009, Mitchell was told to report to Kiel's office. When Mitchell arrived he saw
teachers were changing answers. While the teachers changed tests, Waller and Reid kept Dr.
Kiel occupied. Mitchell changed answers three times that year. One of those times Waller was
in the room. Principal Waller told the teachers that they were there to make sure the students
passed the test and that they only had limited time to get the tests "corrected." Waller was
holding a basket of the tests. He reached in and touched the tests and Ward said to Waller,
"Don't touch those."
Principal Waller gave Crystal Draper $1,000 in cash because her homeroom had the
highest percentage of students pass the CRCT. He gave her the money on the way to the annual
Convocation, in front of all the other teachers.
SRT-2 Executive Director Michael Pitts came to Parks Middle School after this
investigation began and told teachers that he believed this inquiry was racially and politically
motivated.
6. Storiette Mitchell (Teacher)
Starlette Mitchell admitted to changing answers on the 2009 CRCT, but denied changing
answers prior to that year.
7. Dorothea Wilson (Teacher)
Dorothea Wilson confessed to cheating in 2008 and 2009. Wilson does not remember
what year she began changing answers but knows she cheated in at least 2008 and 2009. She
corroborates the testimony of Damany Lewis, Crystal Draper, and Damien Northern. Wilson
cheated because she felt like her "back was up against a wall." Principal Waller walked by her
classroom often and said, "I need the numbers, I need the numbers." Principal Waller also said
to her, "I don't get no tests, my hands are clean."
Wilson testified that Waller "got greedy" in 2009. This led to more teachers erasing
answers.
On the first day of the 2010-2011 school year, SRT-2 Executive Director Michael Pitts
told the teachers that Principal Waller was being reassigned because of the cheating allegations.
According to Wilson, Pitts told the teachers that "[you] better not start saying anything if [you]
have not already said it, because [you will] get your own self in trouble."
24
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
/. Christopher M. Waller (Principal)
We interviewed Principal Waller twice and he was represented by counsel on both
occasions. Waller denied causing or participating in cheating.
Principal Christopher Waller was first interviewed on November 8, 2010. He could not
explain the high number of wrong-to-right erasures at his school. He suggested that if cheating
occurred, it was likely at the Brewer Center where the schools submit the completed tests.
Speaking specifically about the 2009 CRCT, Waller claimed that he was absent the week of
testing. Despite Principal Waller's testimony, multiple teachers testified that he was present for
the 2009 testing.
We interviewed Principal Waller a second time on April 18, 201 1. After answering a few
questions, he stepped out of the room to consult with his attorney. When Waller returned, his
attorney informed us that Principal Waller would be invoking his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. Nonetheless, he continued answering questions.
Principal Waller testified under oath that he was not aware of anyone erasing answers at
Parks. He offered several defenses for why he would not have been involved in cheating,
including: (a) his "financial situation," meaning he was wealthy and would not compromise his
integrity for his principal's salary of approximately $100,000 per year; and (b) the fact that he
was a Reverend at a Methodist Church.
Principal Waller said that the only person with a key to the room where the tests were
kept was Dr. Kiel. Waller denied ever having a key to that office. Principal Waller told us that
we should talk to Kiel. When asked whether he remembered any reports of testing irregularities,
Waller identified only one instance where a teacher reported that a student wrote an answer
down for another student in 2010. (This is in conflict with the testimony of teachers. Fabiola
Aurelien reported cheating in 2006. Megan Eckert reported a testing impropriety in 2010.)
There was also an OIR investigation in 2006 related to cheating on the eighth grade writing test.
We covertly monitored a phone call and a meeting between Principal Waller and other
parties. Waller told one of the cheating teachers that the "procedure was followed" and maybe it
was the "school district or the state [that cheated]." He also said, "If you didn't erase yourself,
you have nothing to worry about." Waller said that the investigators were going to try to get
"everyone to lie" about what happened at Parks, and that no one had to talk them. Waller
laughed about this investigation and said he intends to file a lawsuit against the Governor's
investigators. At a monitored meeting, Principal Waller said that "no one [at the school] said
they touched the tests" and that the investigators "[had] nothing."
2. Gregory Reid (Assistant Principal)
Gregory Reid was the Assistant Principal during all of Principal Waller's tenure.
According to witnesses, Reid was actively involved and assisted Principal Waller in the cheating
conspiracy. Reid denied any knowledge of cheating.
25
3. Sandra Ward (Success for All fSFA) Facilitator)
Sandra Ward was the SFA Facilitator at Parks. When interviewed by the GBI, Ward
refused to answer questions after invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.
4. Adrienne Powell (Teacher)
Adrienne Powell was a sixth grade teacher in 2009. While witnesses implicated Powell,
she denied cheating or having any knowledge of cheating.
5. Kimberly Oden (Teacher)
Kimberly Oden was a teacher at Parks in 2009. She had no flagged classrooms; however,
witnesses say she erased answers in 2009. Oden is no longer teaching in APS and we were not
able to locate her for an interview.
6. Francesca Thompson-Flasle (Teacher)
Latasha Smiley says Thompson-Flagle gave her a copy of the CRCT booklet. Thompson-
Flagle denied knowledge of cheating, or that she gave a copy of the test to anyone.
E. Testimony of Additional Witnesses
1. Stacey Johnson (Teacher)
Stacey Johnson taught math at Parks. Waller asked Johnson to cheat and said that he just
wanted to look good and would Johnson help make him look good. Johnson refused to cheat and
felt ostracized by Principal Waller for her refusal. For example, Waller would meet with all of
the academic coaches but specifically excluded Johnson. Waller would also make references to
Johnson not being on "his team" in front of other teachers.
Principal Waller ordered a clerk to alter attendance records so that the school would meet
the attendance requirement of AYP. Johnson reported all of this information to SRT-2 Executive
Director Michael Pitts in 2006.
According to Johnson, there has been cheating in APS at least as far back as 2002. Three
APS elementary schools feed students into Parks Middle School: Dunbar, Gideons, and Capitol
View. Students from those elementary schools arrive and immediately take a baseline
assessment test. Many of these middle school students would score on a first grade level despite
having done well on the CRCT while in elementary school. These students were expected to do
equally well on the CRCT while in middle school. Those expectations were unreasonable since
their scores in elementary school were artificially inflated.
2. Tameka Grant (Teacher)
Tameka Grant taught at Parks from 2003 until 2006 and knows of cheating there. She
testified that eighth grade students were given the writing question prior to the administration of
the test.
26
Many of her students at Parks previously attended Gideons Elementary. Since students
scored well on the CRCT at Gideons, Principal Waller often said that the students should do
equally well at Parks.
Tameka Grant corroborates the allegations of other witnesses. Grant's contract with APS
was not renewed for the 201 1-2012 school year. She believes that this is retaliation for speaking
out about the misconduct at this school.
3. Fabiola Aurelien (Teacher)
Fabiola Aurelien taught at Parks from 2004 to 2006. She did not participate in, but was
aware of, cheating. Teachers cheated on the CRCT by improperly giving students the correct
answers. For example, Damany Lewis walked around the class during the administration of the
test and pointed out the right answers. On the eighth grade writing test, someone gave
Aurelien' s students the question.
Principal Waller failed to give Aurelien a promotion because she refused to help him
cheat. Waller told her she could have the position if she "would be on his team." Aurelien said
that "being on his team" meant "cheating." She told Principal Waller she would not cheat and he
did not promote her.
In 2006, Aurelien knew that Crystal Draper and Dorothea Wilson helped students with
the CRCT. Aurelien reported the misconduct to Principal Waller, who said he could not take
action unless she had more information. Shortly after Aurelien spoke up, Principal Waller
informed all of the teachers that Aurelien reported cheating and then he reported her allegations
to APS. APS conducted an investigation into Aurelien' s allegations and she was interviewed
several times.
Shortly after Aurelien was interviewed by an investigator for APS in January of 2006,
SRT-2 Executive Director Michael Pitts held a meeting with the faculty. He told the teachers
that "there is nothing you can do to make us think negatively of Principal Waller." Aurelien
believes Pitts was trying to keep people from complaining about misconduct at the school.
4. Megan Eckert (Teacher)
Eckert taught special needs students and administered the CRCT in April 2010. While
she was reading the test to her class, after most classrooms had finished, paraprofessional Chynel
Walker came into Eckert' s classroom and asked to see the test booklet. Eckert initially refused,
but then gave her the document. Walker quickly took the test booklet out of the classroom.
Eckert followed her into the hallway where Waller was standing. Eckert believes Principal
Waller directed Walker to get a copy of the test booklet.
Eckert gave a written report of this apparent testing violation to her supervisor. Principal
Waller summoned Eckert to his office and told her that she had committed a testing violation by
giving Walker the test booklet. He ordered her to change the report to say that Walker took a
"teacher's manual" rather than a "test booklet." Principal Waller told her what the report should
say. He wrote up the report and gave it to Eckert to sign. Principal Waller submitted this false
document to APS Research Associate Dr. Cari Ryan.
27
Eckert also heard about Sandra Ward and Starlette Mitchell taking tests out of the school
in the coolers.
5. Chynel Walker (Paraprofessional)
Walker administered the CRCT to special needs children who are given accommodations
on the CRCT. The test is read to them and there is no time limit for completing the test. In
2010, Walker started to turn in the tests when she realized two students had not finished. She
told Principal Waller. Principal Waller instructed her to turn in all but the two unfinished tests
and then go get another testing booklet from Eckert. Walker went to Eckert' s classroom and
took Eckert' s testing booklet. Walker went back to her classroom to allow the students to finish
the test. She then turned in the tests and gave Principal Waller the testing booklet. Principal
Waller said he would take it back to Eckert. Eckert later told Walker that the booklet was not
there when she turned the test in, so she was one booklet short and reported a testing violation.
F. Other Evidence
SRT-4 Director Tamara Cotman told teachers at Harper- Archer Middle School to visit
Parks and see what they were doing to achieve such good CRCT scores. See Testimony of
Lebroyce Sublett at Harper-Archer.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Principal Waller directed cheating on the CRCT and a number of other
tests. Gregory Reid and Sandra Ward helped Principal Waller facilitate cheating. Principal
Waller directed cheating in essentially the same manner all four years of his time at Parks Middle
School.
We further conclude that Damany Lewis, Crystal Draper, Damien Northern, Dorothea
Wilson, Charles Mitchell, Starlette Mitchell, Adrienne Powell, Kimberly Oden, Francesca
Thompson-Flagle and Latasha Smiley cheated on the CRCT. Dr. Alfred Kiel was not involved
in, and did not know of, the cheating at Parks Middle School. Given the efforts Principal Waller
made to hide his scheme from Kiel, we conclude Kiel cannot be faulted for not discovering the
cheating.
Due to the highly unlikely gains in scores under Principal Waller's leadership, the reports
of cheating from teachers like Stacey Johnson, and the investigative report of Reginal Dukes in
2006, we conclude that Superintendent Beverly Hall and her cabinet knew, or should have
known, that there was cheating at this school. Teachers felt as if they had no option but to do
what Principal Waller directed them to. Several teachers reported Waller's misconduct in 2005
and 2006. APS did not discipline Waller. In fact, SRT-2 Director Michael Pitts held a meeting
at Parks and told the teachers to "stop writing letters about Waller because he is not going
anywhere." Dr. Hall held Waller out to the public as a "model principal." Michael Pitts
dismissed our investigation and said that it was "racist." Pitts attempted to interfere with and
suppress this investigation.
28
3 A,
if*
. -■
si-
I
m
is**-
fit
1^
It ei
h
The learning
nvironment
.t Parks
Middle School
as changed
■ramaticaily
iccording to
Dng-time Parks,
eacher Damany
.ewis. ■ - '
An inner-city middle school with many
risk factors' — 94% of its students are
poor— has experienced a dramatic
turnaround during the past few years,
Why has this happened? The answers
involve-' new leaders who received lots
of support, a relentless focus on data,
and involvement by a broad range of
partners and community residents.
In recent j^ears, Atlanta's Walter Leonard
Parks Middle School has beaten the
odds. Despite being defined as a
"Needs Improvement" school for eight
straight years — and despite serving
..predominantly Low-income. children from "
■single parent households in a struggling
urban neighborhood — Parks has witnessed
remarkable improvements in student
achievement. In math, .for example, the
percentage of eighth graders' exceeding, the:
state's standards rose from 1% to 46%.
29
In one year the percentage of eighth graders meeting. standards
in reading increased by 43 percentage points, from 35% to 78%.
These improvements have enabled the
school to achieve "Adequate Yearly Progress"
during both the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007
school years. It is no longer being defined as
a "Needs Improvement" school under Title 1
and the No Child Left Behind law. -
Parks is the only middle school located
in Atlanta's Neighborhood Planning Unit
V (NPU-V). NPU-V is south of downtown
and includes six historic neighborhoods,
including the Pittsburgh neighborhood,
where Parks is located. Pittsburgh has
been a focus of the work of the Annie E.
Casey Foundation's Atlanta "Civic Site,"
a long-term effort to make low-income
neighborhoods more supportive of children
and their families.
During the 2005-2006 school year, Parks
had 504 students, nearly all of whom were
African American (97%) and low income
(94%).
Between the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006
school years, the percentage of eighth grad-
ers meeting standards in reading increased
by 43 percentage points (from 35% to 78%),
while the percentage meeting standards
in English/Language Arts increased by 21
percentage points (50% to 71%). In math,
the percentage of eighth graders who met or
exceeded the standards increased from 24%
to 86%.
Why These Dramatic Gains? A wide
range of interrelated factors have contributed
to Parks' success during the past few years,
including improvements made under a former
principal, effective and visionary leadership,
data-driven planning and instruction, high
expectations for staff and students, strategic
partners (and the support and funding they
offer), increased discipline and professional
development,
Finding Effective Leadership
and a Strong Staff
When Dr. Beverly L. Hall accepted the lead-
ership of the Atlanta Public School system in
1999, she knew that she would have to look
immediately at the leaders of the schools.
She quickly began the process of changing
principals based upon the performance of the
students in their schools. "You have issues
with principals when the schools are fail-
30
"You have to find someone who is able to go in and, while not being a dictator,
gets people's attention and articulates a vision and mission
in a way that people want to be on board with it...."
—Dr. Beverly L. Hall
ing," she says, She sought leaders with high
standards and a commitment to making sure
students succeed.
"You have to find someone who is able
to lead," Hall explains. "That sounds vague,
but they must be able to go in and, while not
being a dictator, get people's attention and
articulate a vision and mission in a way that
people want to be on board with it, . . ."
Christopher Waller was that person for
Parks Middle School, becoming principal
in February 2005. "I thought [Waller] pos-
sessed the leadership skills," Hall said, "I
knew he cared personally for poor children.
He identified with them and knew their
potential."
About This Report
This report, is based cn inter vews cone- by Atlanta;-
: Cvic Sr.e Dianst Sarah Tonan with i~ adninistra- .•
tors, teachers, Atlanta Public -School System lead-: -.
; ers.'Schoof/resourc&;providers-.::coiT|munity parfe^r:
.ners and othersTas well as site visits It is alsov ~
^tdrawn fron-uarf analysis of No Child Left Befynd ^ *
*test results and a review ofmformation on the 1
-. Atlanta P.ubke Schools and Georgia Department of;--.'
Education websites and otherteports'1-, **<— „~
• ..... * _ ^
\Vhi le this report foe uses or the ifactors-th at con-"- ;
r-f * ■- r - ~" l_
i tnbuted to the increases in student achievement'- --
cu-ing the 2005-2006 school year, strategies that . •
were implemented during the 2006-2007 school r--"
■■.year are also, included.because the interviews ,-,
were conducted over the course of eight months in '
early 2007 ^
31
"Skepticism can mess up an organization. If you have folks on the team who don't think
you can win, you are in trouble. We had to get some people off the bus first.
Then, we had to get the right people on the bus."
—Christopher Waller
But Waller was not the first principal to
improve test scores at Parks. During the pre-
vious three years, test scores had increased
steadily, the result of a new approach to
leadership begun by Superintendent Hall's
"School Reform Team 2" {or SRT 2),. accord-
ing to SRT 2 Executive Director Michael
Pitts.
"When I came in [to lead SRT 2], we
brought in new leadership at Parks," explains
Pitts. "All of the principals in SRT 2 and
across Atlanta Public Schools were being
trained to turn a school around using student
data and keep students engaged through
unit-based work. We were trying to build
teacher and student morale."
But the principal who helped achieve this
success had been dismissed in the summer
of 2004, the result of alleged misconduct at
a different school. This principal's dismissal
caused unrest among the faculty and the
community, and test scores faltered, creating
an extra challenge for Waller.
To help meet this challenge, Waller
brought in a team of new leaders that
he recruited during his first summer. He
hired a former elementary school teacher,
Sandra Ward, to be the Success For All
(SEA) reading facilitator,
"Mr. Waller Intentionally hired an elemen-
tary school reading teacher to be the SFA
facilitator because elementary school teachers
have a strong background in helping students
learn to read," explains Project GRAD
Executive Director Kweku Forstall. (Project
GRAD is a reform model that provides sup-
port for teachers and students.).
At the recommendation of Jackie Daniels,
the interim principal's mentor, Waller hired
an assistant principal, Gregory Reid, to focus
on student discipline. Waller recognized that
his focus needed to be on instruction and
partner recruitment.
"If I kept doing all of the disciplinary
work, I would never really have become the
principal...," explains Waller. "Having [Reid]
on board has allowed me to be the principal,
to deal with the things that principals have to
deal with."
Waller also hired a new Special Education
Administrator.
Not only did Waller have to focus on
hiring new staff, he also had to focus on
making sure the current staff was serving in
the most effective positions. "Skepticism can
mess up an organization," explains Waller,
"If you have folks on the team who don't
think you can win, you are in trouble. . . .
So we had to get some people off the bus
first. Then, we had' to get the right people on
the bus.
"At first, I thought that was it, but it
wasn't. Once you get the right people on
the bus, you have to get them in the right
seats on the bus, That was the final stage
and that is what we have been working on
recently. . ..We are doing that based upon
the data, performance, test scores and
observation."
32
"Basically, all of the principals' issues are handled right here in this office. My job is to make sure
that those issues are taken care of so that the principals can be instructional leaders and not have
to worry about the more common things that they would have to worry about all of the time."
—Michael Pitts
33
"The rubber hits the road in the classroom every day.
Teachers need ongoing support and coaching to become very proficient."
— Kweku Forstall
Following Proven Reform
Models and Emphasizing
Professional Development
No school can increase student achievement
without effective teaching in the classroom.
To ensure that classroom instruction sup-
ported student success, Parks faculty and
leadership drew on a variety of resources,
including the School Reform Team 2, the
Project GRAD reform model, the Georgia
Department of Education and others.
School Reform Team 2
When Dr. Beverly Hall became Adanta Pub-
lic Schools superintendent, she brought with
her the idea of School Reform Teams (SRT).
SRTs are designed to be one-stop shops,
providing the schools in each team with the
supports and services they need to most ef-
fectively serve and teach their students. Each
SRT, led by an executive director who has
been a successful principal, offers support to
its schools on maintenance, hiring and legal
issues as well as teacher training, mentoring
and coaching.
"Basically, all of the principals' issues are
handled right here in this office," explains
SRT 2 Executive Director Fitts. "My job is
to make sure that those issues are taken care
of so that the principals can be instructional
leaders and not have to worry about the
more common things that they would have to
worry about all of the time."
"Leadership team meetings have to be
instruction ally focused," explains Dr. Cheryl
Hunley, a retired principal brought in to sup-
h ;port principals at Parks and six other schools.
""There are other meetings in which you can
deal with the facilities and the technical
aspects of the job, but the leadership team
must have an instructional focus to deter-
mine what they need and where they go from
■ here."
! Project GRAD
Project GRAD is the reform model that
was launched in SRT 2 schools to help them
improve student achievement and success at
\ the be ginning of the 2002-2003 school year.
Project GRAD seeks to ensure a quality pub-
lic school education for all at-risk children in
economically disadvantaged communities so
that high school graduation rates increase and
graduates are prepared to enter and succeed
f .in college, It focuses on training and support
' for teachers to help them deliver quality
instruction and effectively manage their class-
; rooms.
Project GRAD includes professional
development for teachers, ongoing support
with constructive feedback, coaching and
re-training when necessary. This support has
! been critical, Waller believes. "It was the
professional development that paved the way
to increase the teachers' knowledge base and
their arsenals of strategies,"
34
"Data increases your awareness. You can't know
where you are going if you don't know where you are."
—Christopher Waller
Using Data in the Classroom
Data has become a critical tool to improve stu-
dent success at Parks Middle School, being used
by the school's teachers and administrators in
their planning and instruction. They use data to
regularly assess how well students are learning,
whether the school is meeting its School Reform
Team-required benchmarks and whether students
are prepared for their "Criterion Referenced Com-
petency Tests."
After conveying information focused on a set
of objectives {such as measuring perimeter and
area), a teacher will assess the students' mastery
of those objectives with a short test. Each ques-
tion will be linked to one of the covered objec-
tives. The teacher will review the results of the
assessment and will compile a summary for each
student of which questions they missed and how
these questions align with the learning objectives.
The students will be assigned to small groups
or "pods" based upon which objectives they
hadn't mastered. For the next few days, the small
groups will work together on problems related
to that objective and review their homework and
class notes on that topic. Students who did not
miss any questions will be provided with more
challenging work or reinforcement exercises tar-
geted to their needs.
These regular class assessments are comple-
mented by assessments required by SRT 2 every
nine weeks, which ensure that students are pro-
gressing and which
identify those who are
falling behind so that
they can receive ad-
ditional support.
Waller says that when he
became principal "I gave
the data to everybody....
and they used it for
instructional purposes....
Even the kids know
their data." Here Waller
and Casey Foundation
education consultant
Elizabeth Kelly discuss
data on test scores that
is posted in the school's
hallway.
35
"Ms. Huniey has been there, done that. She provides quality advice to our administrative
leaders and they convey the ideas to us in a way that works for our school."
— Damany Lewis
"The rubber hits the road in the class-
room every day," says Kweku horstall, Project
GRAD Atlanta's executive director. "Teachers
need ongoing support and coaching to be-
come very proficient in delivering their areas
of instruction. . . . Experienced teachers who
are good shouLd be helping less proficient
teachers through mentoring and visiting
classrooms and sharing best practices."
Project GRAD also does data collection
and evaluation. Data collection includes
quarterly assessments in reading and math
and semi-annual class visits to evaluate class-
room management. Data are also collected to
track discipline referrals, parent involvement
and student attendance and to measure the
change in public perceptions of school safety
and organization.
"Data increases your awareness," says
Waller. "You can't know where you are going
if you don't know where you are."
Recognizing that non-academic issues
can serve as barriers to student achievement,
Project GRAD partners with Communities
In Schools (CIS) to provide services to
address those issues. CIS support helps
increase student attendance and parent
involvement and includes one-on-one and
small group counseling with at-risk students,
as well as access to dental, hearing and vision
exams.
"GRAD is not an overnight results
program," explains Forstall. "It's about
incremental progress in trying to close the
achievement gap."
Training and support from the
Georgia Department of Education
In an effort to support "Needs Improve-
anent" schools, the Education Department's
State School Improvement Division began
to provide expert consultation to struggling
schools in 2004. The state assigned Dr.
Cheryl Huniey to serve in Parks and six other
area schools. She was trained by the state and
given a set of tools, instruments and resources
to support school improvement in the tar-
geted schools,
She came on board at Parks during the
summer of 2004, immediately following the
removal of the former principal. She worked
closely with both the interim principal
and Principal Waller to identify areas for
potential improvement. She has also pro-
vided training to the staff, making sure they
understood the state standards and how the
curriculum prepares the students to meet
;ihose standards.
"We have had to go back and do pro-
fessional learning on rigor, relevance and
relationship," she explains. "If it is not impor-
tant, we don't teach it. ... A child's project is
no better than the assignment you give them.
You can't give them busy work. . . . [The teach-
ers] are focused on the standards."
"Ms. Huniey has been there, done that,"
explains Damany Lewis, a seventh grade
math teacher at Parks. "She provides quality
advice to our administrative leaders and they
convey the ideas to us in a way that works for
our school."
36
"Many of the teachers talked about how well the students had done before.
We had to have the conversation that, if they had done well before,
I wouldn't be here because you would not be in restructuring..,."
— Dr. Cheryl Hunley
The professional development provided
through Project GRAD, SRT 2 and Georgia
DOE has paved the way for increasing the
teachers' knowledge base and their "treasure
chests" of strategies to improve learning.
"There are more deliberate meetings
around curriculum happening on a consistent
basis," reports Catalina Sibilsky, Principal
in Residence of Atlanta Public Schools and
Project Manager of Atlanta's middle school
transformation work. "There are more tools
for consistent use of assessments. There are
lots more conversations around curriculum
instruction."
Using Data To Drive Instruction
and Develop Individual
Learning Plans
During Superintendent Hall's eight-year ten-
ure at APS, the system has increased its use
of data to drive instruction and track student
progress.
APS workshops emphasize the need to let
the data drive instruction, and APS continues
■to implement new technology to support
teachers' and schools' efforts to use data to
increase student achievement.
To keep close track on how students are progressing,
Parks Middle School students take frequent tests.
37
"It's not magic. You focus on the data to determine where to place resources.
If the reading level is down in one grade, you focus additional resources
on students and teachers at that level."
— Kweku Forstall
"It's not magic," explains Project GRAD's
Forstall. "You focus on the data to determine
where to place resources. If the reading level
is down in one grade, you focus additional
resources on students and teachers at that
level. You look at the data ana you hold
people accountable."
As the 2005—2006 school year began,
the teachers and administrators at Parks
examined the data and planned accordingly,
"[Waller] is a little more focused on Lhe data
and where they have to go with regards to
AYP [Adequate Yearly Progress] in order to
be successful," explains SRT 2's Pitts, "His
acceleration in using the data and the data
'dashboards' probably allowed him to move
faster than others."
Data were already being used to guide
instruction and planning at Parks, but
Waller changed the way that it was used and
integrated it more deeply into the planning,
decision-making and instruction. Before
he joined the staff, awareness of the data
was limited and those who were aware of it
tended to use it for quotation purposes rather
than planning purposes.
"When I came, I gave the data to every-
body," Waller explains. "Everybody knew the
data... and they used it for instruction pur-
poses.... Even the kids know their data. They
can tell you their individual scores and wdiat
their goal is."
"You have to let the data drive the
instruction," says Sandra Ward, the school's
reading facilitator. "Not just from bench-
marks and standardized tests. Data needs to
drive day-by-day teaching. In each lesson you
need to assess the students to make sure they
have mastered it."
The limited awareness and understanding
of the data was evidenced in Hunley's
coaching of some of the faculty. "Many
of the teachers tallced about how well the
students had done before [Mr. Waller was
hired]," Hunlcy remembers. "We had to have
the conversation that, if they had done well
before, I wouldn't be here because you would
not be in restructuring..., They perceived that
the years before were so much better. They
did not understand that the data did not
substantiate what they were saying."
She began to realize that their evalua-
tion of the school's performance was based
not on student achievement, but on how
comfortable they were in their job. "There
was a culture, a comfort zone, that was good
for them," she adds. "One of the things Mr.
Waller had to do was break up that comfort
zone because that was not good for the kids.
They equated doing well with doing what
they wanted to do."
Superintendent Hall agrees about the
importance of insisting on accountability.
;"People have a hard time pointing out non-
performance. They like the people and know
their personal situations, so they will make
excuses for them because they are too nice
and unable to deal with low performance.
A good leader goes in, takes time to assess,
but knows that the core business is to make
38
"You have to let the data drive the instruction. Not just from benchmarks and standardized tests.
Data needs to drive day-by-day teaching. In each lesson you need to assess
the students to make sure they have mastered it."
— Sandra Ward
sure students succeed. You have to have
courage."
Hunley helped Parks' teachers to look
at the data and to understand what was
required to meet Adequate Yearly Progress
and why they were not achieving it. "We had
some very intelligent teachers who just didn't
understand the process," she explains.
"Once we got the numbers right, we
could put names with the numbers. . . . We
were able to pull the data by teachers so we
knew who was being effective and who was
not. When we identified the effective teach-
ers, we could look more closely at what they
were doing."
The data is not only used to guide school
and class planning, it is also used to develop
plans for each student. Beginning during
the 2006—2007 school year, teachers and
faculty at Parks break the data down for
each student, creating prescriptive Individual
Learning Plans.
"It's just like when you go to the doctor,"
explains Waller. "When we give them individ-
ual instruction based upon their chart, we are
able to work on their individual deficiencies."
Each student has an academic chart
displaying their strengths and weaknesses so
that their teachers and tutors can provide
targeted instruction. Traditionally, these types
of prescriptive learning plans are used only
for students in special education classes, but
at Parks they are used for all students.
Setting High Expectations
and Cultivating Support
When Waller became principal at Parks, lie
was determined to turn around a long-time
failing school by eliminating the achievement
gap between Parks students and those at
other Atlanta schools. Several faculty and
staff members were wary and distrustful
when Waller came on board, and he had to
work hard to enlist their support for his new
efforts.
The community was also uneasy,
"We didn't know how long he would be
there," explains Pittsburgh Community
Improvement Association Executive Director
LaShawn Hoffman. "I heard that a lot from
the community at the beginning of his
tenure. We had a new principal who had
never been a principal before. We thought
they were hiring him because APS didn't
care. You better believe that we heard a lot of
that."
Waller stressed the school's strengths
and helped it to address its weaknesses.
"Our comfort zone was snatched up when
Mr, Waller was brought in, but he handled
that well," remembers Lewis, "He didn't
come in saying 'You are Needs Improvement;
what you have been doing hasn't been
working so you have to do it my way, '
He said, 'You have been improving
consistently over the past few years, so let's
keep doing what you were doing, but let's
improve it.'"
39
"People have a hard time pointing out non-performance. They like the people and know their
personal situations, so they will make excuses for them because they are too nice and unable to
deal with low performance. You have to have courage,"
—Dr. Beverly L. Hall
A new way to build
a team within the school
One strategy that Waller used to enlist the
support of school staff was to arrange for a
professional development retreat in Destin,
Florida, during his first summer as principal.
There lie was able to bond with his new
team.
"Tbe culture was such that they were
stonewalling him," remembers Hunley, "He
decided.., to take them to Florida, for some
team building. There are places they could
have gone in town, but this was a way to
really get them out of their normal frame of
reference.... It was a wonderful trip! I could
see when they were lighting up and connect-
ing with him."
. i
40
"The culture was such that they were stonewalling him. He decided. ..to take them to Florida for
some team building. There are places they could have gone in town, but this was a way to really
get them out of their normal frame of reference.... It was a wonderful trip!"
— Dr. Cheryl Hunley
During the retreat, Waller introduced
some new teaching strategies, including "Dif-
ferentiating Instruction" and "Inclusion and
Collaboration." Differentiating Instruction
recognizes that individual students have dif-
ferent abilities and learn in different ways, It
creates multiple paths so that all students ex-
perience equally appropriate ways to absorb,
use, develop and present concepts as a part
of the daily learning process.
Inclusion and Collaboration brings stu-
dents with special learning and behavior needs
into the general education program full-time
with additional support staff in the classroom.
It also provides teachers the comprehensive
professional development to help them de-
velop collaborative skills so that all students
can succeed in this new environment.
"We didn't have teachers protesting
because we didn't talk about that at school.
We talked about it in Destin — on the beach,"
explains Waller with a grin. "It is hard to kick
an idea when you are on the beach. I think
we might have received a different reaction
if we had introduced it in the school's media
center."
Another strategy he used to gain the sup-
port of school staff was to increase discipline.
"Once I became principal, I knew the very
first thing I had to do was get the climate
back under control," explains Waller. "Teach-
ers love you when you are getting control of
the kids so that was the first thing we did. . . .
You have to have a climate that is conducive
to learning,"
Setting a Clear Vision
At the 2005 ceremony to honor the eighth
graders who were being promoted to high
school, Waller outlined his vision of success
for Parks. He told students, parents and fac-
ility members, "If it can be done in Buckhead
[a wealthy Atlanta neighborhood], it can be
done right here in Pittsburgh," remembers
Waller.
"Oh, they shouted and they clapped. That
was the most amazing statement they had
ever heard, that their children could succeed
just like the children on the other, richer side
of town."
Waller and his staff repeatedly stressed the
simple vision of eliminating the achievement
gap, "We didn't get into the 'la-la-la (comma)
la-la-la (comma) la-la-la of educational jar-
gon,'" he explains. "We kept it very simple,
We said, 'If it can be done anywhere, it can
be done right here at Parks. Academically, we
will eliminate the achievement gap.'"
To achieve that simple vision, Waller
immediately set higher expectations for
the students, teachers, administrators
and community partners at Parks. "Waller
has informed the kids that they are not
a hopeless cause," explains Hoffman of
the Pittsburgh Community Improvement
Association. "He sets high standards
and demands accountability. From my
perspective, he holds the children and adults
in the school — including the teachers and
p arapro f e ssi onals — accountable . "
41
"Once I became principal, i knew the very first thing I had to do was get the climate back
under control. Teachers love you when you are getting control of the kids,
You have to have a climate that is conducive to learning,"
—Christopher Waller
But high expectations by themselves
"don't mean much without buy in," Waller
says. "The students had to buy in, the
parents bad to buy in and the community
had to buy in. That helped to implement the
strategies that would make trie expectations
attainable . "
Parents and community residents became
more involved in the student success effort
when the school began opening its doors to
them and providing an array of services and
programs, "We involved parents," explains
Lewis. "We have a GED course here.,,. We
have Saturday Schools. Last year, we had a
program where parents could come to take a
six-week computer class and get a free com-
puter when they finished. . . . When you start
bringing the community into it, the students
respond."
Waller and others constantiy high-
lighted the various small and large
achievements the school made at
every chance they got. Waller reports carrying
an ever-changing note card in his packet with
him wherever he went. Whenever he got the
chance — at faculty meetings, at community
meetings, when he was speaking with stu-
dents in the hall — he would pull the card out
and announce the achievements.
To show the students that, despite their
families' current economic conditions, they
could achieve their dreams, Waller made sure
that students knew that he had once walked
in their shoes.
"When people and the students see us,
they tend to see us just as we are today,"
shares Waller, "They don't know what you
had to go through to get where you are. I
realized that I couldn't be ashamed to show
my children where I had been. I told them
where they are today is not where they will
be tomorrow. I told them, 'I have been where
you are and now, look at where I am.' You
talk about it. You model to them. You show
them that they can get to where they want to
go,"
Superintendent Hall agrees with Waller's
high expectations for the students at Parks .
"When I can stand in front of my principals
and read the list of highest-performing
schools in the district, a list that runs the
gamut from schools in the highest income
areas to schools in the lowest income areas,
there are no excuses," says Hall.
"While I believe the impact of extreme
poverty should not be ignored, I know that .
we have to address the quality of teaching,
and learning, since that is the most important
variable in this equation."
Parks staff, administrators and partners
knew that the students were on board when
they witnessed their reaction to a math
benchmark test in the spring of 2006. The
benchmark test showed that they were far
from prepared for the CRCT ("Criterion
Referenced Competency Test") math test. At
the urging of Hunley (the retired principal
brought in as a consultant by the state
education department), Waller called an im-
promptu "community meeting" of the eighth
graders in the school hallway.
42
"We involved parents. We have a GED course here.
We have Saturday schools, a six-week computer class for parents.
When you start bringing the community into it, the students respond."
— Damany Lewis
Waller "preached" to them, lighting a
competitive fire under them and explaining
that the staff would do everything they could
to help the students pass the test. Hunley
remembers Waller saying, "A lot of folks out-
side of this school say you can't do ^because
of where you live, but 1 know you can do it! I
know you are smart. I see you every day and
I look at you. I know you can do this."
At that community meeting, the staff and
faculty pledged to do whatever was necessary
to help the students learn, A voluntary math
tutorial class quickly filled to capacity with
students sitting on the floor to attend. Weeks
later, 40% of those students met the state
standards in math while an additional 46%
exceeded the standards.
"All children can learn," says Ward, Parks'
reading facilitator. "This is what we have
been telling our children over and over again.
As long as you focus, develop a goal and a
dream, you can accomplish it."
Celebration is another critical factor
involved in getting the cooperation
and buy-in of students and faculty
members. The school celebrates at every op-
portunity, demonstrating to the students that,
if they work hard, good things will happen.
With the support of partners, including the
Salvation Army, Communities In Schools
(CIS) and the Annie E. Casey Foundation,
the school threw parties to celebrate high
attendance rates and academic success. If a
is"!
|-~ attendance
at Parks has
improved
dramatically.
Before,
If nearly
20% of
|i students
Is missed at
if least 15
jj' days. Last
year, only
!' one student
| missed this
many days
(0.2%).
43
"All children can learn. This is what we have been telling our children over and over again.
As long as you focus, develop a goal and a dream, you can accomplish it."
—Sandra Ward
student came to school every day in a month,
their name went into a drawing and they
could win television sets, game systems or
bicycles.
"With CIS and the NBA*( Never .Been
Absent) Program, we have lots of incentives
in place to motivate them to come and to
succeed," explains Assistant Principal Reid.
"Just being in Parks everyday, you never know
what might happen to you .... That gets and
holds your attention."
Efforts to encourage student attendance
have had a significant effect. Whereas 19.2%
of students missed at least 15 school days
during the 2003—2004 school year, that num-
ber was nearly cut in half the following year
(down to 9.9%). Attendance has continued to
improve dramatically with only 2.5% missing
at least 15 days in 2005-2006 and only one
student (.2%) reaching that threshold during
the last school year.
Lewis believes that one reason for the
drop in absenteeism is the increased rigor of
the class work. Students are given make-up
assignments that become increasingly dif-
ficult to do when they miss multiple days
of school. "If you miss a day you can get
behind; if you miss two or three days, you are
lost," explains Lewis. "They come back saying
that they don't get it. I say, 'That's good.' If
you can miss a day and still get it, I'm not
doing my job,'"
Building Strategic Partnerships
and Broad Support
When Waller was hired at Parks, the school
had almost no corporate or community
partners and only three parents came to
meet him at an introductory meeting
organized by the school's Parent-Teacher
Association.
{. The^Pittsburgh Community Improvement
'Association (PCIA) had been in partnership
with the school, but that partnership had
struggled as staff changes at the school and
in the organization forced them to repeatedly
build new relationships. PCIA had helped
the school recruit two business partners,
Jones Day Law Firm and Carey Limousines,
located near Parks in the Pittsburgh neigh-
borhood. Those businesses had become
frustrated because of the changes at the
school and a lack of structure to the partner-
ships.
"There was a consistent effort on the part
of PCIA," remembers PCIA's Hoffman,
"but the leadership changed so much at
Parks that there was not an opportunity to
establish a formal structure.. ,. People didn't
/think their efforts would achieve anything
and it was easier to not do anything than to
keep trying." •
Recognizing a need to recruit additional
partners, Waller began to attend meetings of
the neighborhood's Ministers' Alliance. There
he met several strategic partners, including
PCIA's Hoffman and Major Gloria Reagan of
44
"We didn't know how long he would be there. I heard that a lot from the community at the
beginning of his tenure. We had a new principal who had never been a principal before.
We thought they were hiring him because APS didn't care."
— LaShawn Hoffman
the Salvation Army College of Officer Train-
ing, located in the Pittsburgh neighborhood.
His efforts became more successful when
the Casey Foundation's Atlanta Civic Site
team contacted APS and Parts in an.effort
to establish a partnership. This occurred after
The Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation
made an initial commitment to support the
redesign of The New Schools at Carver, the
high school into which Parks feeds. To date,
The Blank Foundation has committed $4.5
million to fund student support programs for
students at The New Schools at Carver as a
part of a larger redesign effort.
Leaders at The Blank Foundation pre-
vailed upon Casey to work with Parks to
ensure that its students were prepared for the
rigor of The New Schools.
"[The Blank Foundation] said they felt
that The New Schools at Carver would be
more successful if the whole pipeline — the
whole feeder system — was successful," ex-
plains the Casey Foundation's Atlanta Civic
Site Manager, Gail Hayes. 'They identified
that Parks was a very low performing school.
They saw high achieving elementary schools
and a failing middle school feeding into The
New Schools at Carver, and they knew that
student achievement at Parks would have to
Pittsburgh
Community
Improvement
Association's
LaShawn Hoffman
says that before
Christopher Waller
became Parks'
principal, the
leadership had
changed so often
that "people didn't
think their efforts
would achieve
anything."
45
"I did a lot of reading and listening when I first began this work. What I determined — and this is
not rocket science — is that the school needed to increase parent involvement and attract more
corporate partners. They needed other supports to really increase student achievement."
--Elizabeth Kelly
increase in order for their investment to be
successful."
The partnership began with a meeting in
the summer of 2005 between. Hayes, Princi-
pal Waller, SRT 2 Executive Director-Pitts,
Project GRAD Executive Director Forstall,
Casey Senior Associate for Education Bruno
Manno and Casey Consultant Elizabeth
Kelly. In that meeting, Hayes challenged
Waller and his team to set the ambitious goal
of achieving Adequate Yearly Progress in the
next school year, a goal that Waller and Pitts
readily accepted.
Kelly began her work to support Parks by
meeting with Waller and other school staff
and partners and researching what programs
were in place at the school and what oppor-
tunities existed for targeted supports,
"I did a lot of reading and listening when
I first began this work," explains Kelly. "What
I determined — and this is not rocket sci-
ence— is that the school needed to increase
parent involvement and attract more cor-
porate partners. They felt that they were on
track to meet AYP that year, but they needed
other supports to really increase student
achievement." '
After Casey began partnering with Parks,
Waller's efforts to recruit partners
became much easier. "I want to make
it clear that Casey brought other partners to
the table.... I can focus on the instruction
and implementation of the curriculum with
integrity.... Prior to Casey, Parks wasn't
invited to the table, Now, when people talk
about NPU-V, they are talking about Parks
in some component," (NPU-V is the "neigh-
borhood planning unit" that includes Parks
Middle School.)
Parks' partners now include After School
All Stars, Communities In Schools, Digital
Connectors-One Economy, Georgia State
University, Hands On Atlanta, Mendez
i Foundation, the Ministers' Alliance, Music .
It ^Matters, Pittsburgh Community Improve-
ment Association, Salvation Army College
of Officer Training, United Way, Casey
Foundation and community associations.
While some of these partners joined Parks
as a part of Project GRAD, the diversity and
scope of partners has greatly increased in
recent years.
These partners provide a wide variety
of in-kind and financial support. Salvation
Army supports the Never Been Absent
Program, hosts GED and Literacy classes
for adults during the evening at Parks, and
provides food and materials when requested.
United Way, Georgia State, Casey
and After School All Stars support the new
after-school program launched in October
■I -2006 to provide additional targeted assis-
• ' 'tance to students who are near the threshold
of meeting standards. Hands On Atlanta
provides tutoring to students in need of ad-
ditional one-on-one support and has provided
computers to students.
The Casey Foundation sponsored a
staff celebration at Dave and Busters and
46
"I want to make it clear that Casey brought other partners to the table....
1 can focus on the instruction and implementation of the curriculum with integrity....
Prior to Casey, Parks wasn't invited to the table."
—Christopher Waller
purchased matching maroon blazers for
faculty and staff to honor their first year of
AYP success. The foundation also purchased
planner notebooks for all students and sup-
ported professional development and training
opportunities for school staff.
Communities In Schools, which is a
component of the Project GRAD reform
model, provides wrap-around services in die
schools to help students, address factors that
could interfere with their academic achieve-
ment, including counseling, small group work
with at-risk students, and in-kind resources
such as dental check ups and eye exams.
They also reach out to parents and caregivers
to make them feel more comfortable in the
school, helping to organize a Massage for
Moms night and a Dinner with Dad night.
Superintendent Hall believes that part-
nerships and supports for students are a
critical component of achieving success in
low-income schools. "The impact of extreme
poverty should not be ignored," Hall explains.
"The supports play a big role, That is why
Project GRAD has Communities in Schools.
That is why Hands On Atlanta provides
tutors and why Casey provides supports to
mitigate against other issues , . , , Most of the
schools that are doing well with poor children
are schools that have strong partnerships.
Those are real contributing factors."
"When you have support," Waller believes,
"you don't feel like you are in it by yourself.
So many times, Parks felt like it had been in
it by itself," ■
Integrating what is taught
in elementary, middle
and high schools
The Casey Foundations support has also
helped initiate "Vertical Alignment" efforts
to link the curricula between the elementary,
middle and high schools. "After talking to the
principals at Parks, Gideons and The New
.Schools at Carver, I was struck by the fact
1., tthat there was no bridge between the three
stages," remembers Kelly, "There was a dis-
connect between the elementary and middle
school curricula and no preparation in middle
school for high school."
With funding support from Casey and
senior leaders from APS, the Vertical Align-
ment steering committee began meeting in
December 2005. The goal of the group was
to develop a rigorous middle school curricu-
lum at Parks that aligns with the academies
of The New Schools at Carver and better
prepares students upon graduation to be suc-
cessful in high school.
Work groups — aligned with the four
academies at The New Schools at Carver and'
\: comprised of staff from Carver, Parks, Proj-
i >ict GRAD, SRT 2 and APS— met regularly in
2006, collecting data on current conditions
and identifying high-performing teachers,
training needs and achievement gaps (be-
tween Parks students and The New Schools'
requirements).
Funding from the Georgia Department of
Human Resources enabled Parks to launch a
Summer Youth Program in 2006 to prepare
incoming sixth graders for the transition to
47
"The impact of extreme poverty should not be ignored. The supports play a big role.
Most of the schools that are doing well with poor children are schools
that have strong partnerships."
—Dr. Beverly L. Hail
middle school while simultaneously strength-
ening students' skills and knowledge. Because
of the success of the summer program, DHR
agreed to continue the funding year-round,
enabling Parks to launch its After School
All Stars Program in the fall of 2006 and to
continue the summer program in 2007.
The Vertical Alignment work at Parks
will continue as the model expands to other
APS middle schools. "It has become a way
of working for Parks and that work will con-
tinue," explains Hall. "Now we are beginning
to model other schools' efforts around the
Parks initiative."
Improving the School's Physical
and Social Environment
Principal Waller understood that many of
the students attending Parks Middle School
might not have a warm home environment
where the adults in their lives provided love,
support and structure. To ensure that Parks
could provide them with a safe and nurturing
environment during the school hours, Waller
started to address the physical and social
environment as soon as he came on staff.
He asked APS to paint the walls and put
the school colors and mascot, Mustangs,
One of
Principal
Waller's first
steps was to
improve the
look of Parks
Middle School.
This included
a mural at
the school's
entrance that
highlighted
the school's
colors (red
and yellow)
£ and mascot,
a mustang.
"We wanted
the school to
have a warm
feeling."
"It was really that bad when I first came here. Now the students won't even litter. Now it is
offensive to them,... Lately, if someone talks out of turn, I will pause, and the students will
chastise them,... They are regulating themselves."
— Da many Lewis
on the wall of the front entrance
lobby. He encouraged teachers
to post examples of good student
work on bulletin boards in the
hallways. He purchased pictures,
park benches and greenery and
placed them throughout the school
building.
"We wanted the school to have
a warm feeling when you walk in,"
explains Waller, "Regardless of
what cold situation you might have
come from, you are here and there
is a warm feeling here."
In addition to improving the
physical environment, Waller
quickly tried to get the social environment
under control by increasing discipline. This
included the way the students carried them-
selves in the school. The faculty instituted
"Operation Pull and Tuck," requiring all stu-
dents to have their shirts tucked in and their
pants around their waist.
"Discipline had been an issue here, but . . .
they don't walk the halls anymore," explains
Hunley. "They put their shirt tails in their
pants. While doing that seems minor, it really
changes the way they carry themselves."
Damany Lewis, who began teaching
at Parks in the 1999-2000 school year,
remembers the challenges that a lack of
discipline caused early in his career at Parks.
He remembers students urinating in trashcans
before tossing them into a classroom and
running away. He remembers how there was
no toilet paper in the bathrooms because the
students would wet it and throw it onto the
ceiling.
"It was really that bad when I first came
here," he explains. "Now the students won't
even litter. Now it is offensive to them....
Lately, if someone talks out of turn, I will
pause, and the students will chastise them. ...
They are regulating themselves." ■
"The school environment and how stu-
dents feel about themselves is important,"
explains Kweku Forstall. "If they see other
students running rampant in the schools
with no boundaries, limits and respect for
the teachers, they will take it less seriously, ..
When you beautify the school and enhance
the environment, it supports a positive
attitude and diminishes distractions to aca-
demics."
49
"The schooi environment and how students feel about themselves is important.
If they see other students running rampant in the schools with no boundaries,
limits and respect for the teachers, they will take it less seriously."
— Kweku Forstall
Moving Forward
Having been successful in achieving Adequate
Yearly Progress for two straight years, Parks
Middle School is no longer defined as a Needs
Improvement school under No ChildXeft
Behind. Instead, it is defined as a School of
Choice, meaning that parents with children
enrolled at struggling schools in the district
can elect to send their children to Parks.
This success has led to increased student
morale, self-confidence and teacher owner-
ship and commitment, as well as a strong
sense of pride across the community. Parks
has become a model reform school for the
state and for partner agencies.
The school's success did, however, bring
some negative financial consequences. Be-
cause it is no longer a Needs Improvement
school, Parks will lose a significant amount of
resources, including:
8 $124,000 from its supplemental budget
• $450,000 in supplemental educational
services
• $100,000 in Title I funds
• $75,000 in state consultant/professional
development support
• Additional materials, supplies and
technology
50
"We are clearly improving. But we stil! have § long way to go. We are attacking those
[challenges] with great vigor and intentionality with system-wide initiatives.
The key lesson here is that it takes a long time to turn around a school system."
—Dr. Beverly L. Ha!!
Continuing to increase student success
while losing these important resources will be
a challenge, but Parks' leadership and staff
believe they are prepared . Waller continues
to set ambitious goals for the school and its
students. Not satisfied with merely achieving
AYP and APS system targets, Waller is chal-
lenging his faculty and students to help the
school become a "90-90-90" school, meaning
that more than 90% of students meet or ex-
ceed standards in Reading, English/Language
Arts and Mathematics.
"Now that we have achieved AYP for two
years in a row," explains Waller, 'AYP is no
longer a lofty goal. In order to keep our orga-
nization moving forward, we have to continue
to increase our targets."
They will be supported in their efforts by
an array of new programs and partners that
will continue to support student learning
in the future. The Parent-Teacher-Student
Association has been expanded and revived.
New educational partners are working with
Parks to ensure that students have the
supports and opportunities they need. The
Family Literacy Program is providing parents
and other area adults with GED and literacy
classes, which demonstrate to students the
importance of staying focused and staying in
school.
The efforts at Parks will also be supported
by district-wide reform efforts as Hall and
her team work to transform middle and high
schools and to improve student achievement
and learning in math and science.
"There is still work to be done," explains
Hall. "We are clearly improving. But we
still have a long way to go in the areas of
math and science grades K-12 and in high
schools overall. But we are attacking those
with great vigor and intentionality with
system-wide initiatives. The key lesson here
is that it takes a long time to turn around a
school system."
"If it can be done anywhere, it can be done
right here at Parks," said Principa! Waller,
shown with a Parks student.
51
"When I can stand in front of my principals and read the list of highest-performing schools in the
district, a list that runs the gamut from schools in the highest income areas to
schools in the lowest income areas, there are no excuses."
—Dr. Beverly L Hall
The Diarist Project
This is one of a series of publications
about the Annie E. Casey Foundation's
work in low-income neighborhoods put
together by The Diarist Project, The project is
a new approach the foundation is using to
learn from its efforts to strengthen
families and transform struggling
neighborhoods.
Diarists work to capture
strategies and insights
of the people who are
leading the neighborhood
transformation work.
This story was written by
Sarah Torian, the Atlanta Civic
Site diarist, It was edited by
Tim Saasta, diarist coordinator.
Photos ©2007 by Stanley
Leary. Published in December
2007.
A Parks Middle School Student
The Annie E. Casey Foundation works to
build better futures for disadvantaged
children and their families in the United States.
Its primary mission is to foster public policies,
human service reforms and community
supports that more effectively meet the needs
of today's vulnerable children and families.
Atlanta is one of three Casey Foundation
civic sites, which are cities where the
foundation has "home-town" ties. Atlanta is the
headquarters of UPS. The Casey Foundation
was started by the founder of UPSt Jim Casey,
and his siblings. (The other two Civic Sites are
Baltimore, MD, and New Haven, CN.)
The Atlanta Civic Site focuses on five
:of Atlanta's oldest neighborhoods, all
'located just south of downtown. These
neighborhoods — Adair Park, Mechanicsville,
Peoplestown, Pittsburgh and
, Summerhill/Capitol Homes —
comprise a once-thriving
African-American community
that has experienced a
, great deal of property
disinvestment, population '
decrease and general
economic decline over the
past 30 years.
To help strengthen
families in these
neighborhoods, the
oundation has been promoting
neighborhood-scale programs,
policies and activities that
'contribute to strong, family-supporting
neighborhoods. These efforts focus on education
achievement, family economic success and
neighborhood transformation.
For more information, contact: The Atlanta
Civic Site, 477 Windsor Street, SW, Atlanta, GA
30312; mvw.atlantacivksite.org; 404-222-3660.
For more information about ^ j_
The Diarist Project contact rim Saasta a* -
Tim@ChariTyChoices,corn - . > ]
Diansirpubhcations are avadable at [
www.DiarislProject.org. *•
52
VENETIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1910 Venetian Drive, SW Principal: Clarietta Davis SRT-4 Executive Director: TamaraCotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30311 Testing Coordinator: Milagros Moner
I. INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Venetian Hills Elementary in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,
2008, and 2009. Five teachers and the testing coordinator at Venetian Hills confessed to erasing
answers. Cheating at Venetian Hills is evidenced by the high number of flagged classrooms,
confessions, witness testimony, and Principal Clarietta Davis' refusal to answer our questions
about cheating.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
75.4
1.5
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
52
1
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
19(18)
1(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
12.8
3
High Flagged Standard Deviation
24.5
3
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.8
3
53
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
The following teachers altered test documents at Venetian Hills Elementary School:
Jacquelyn Parks, Melba Smith, Alma Keen, Angela Bennett, Tyrone Hankerson, Hardy Scott,
and Milagros Moner. A group of teachers got together in Testing Coordinator Milagros Moner's
office in the afternoons. The teachers met in that office, locked the door, and erased wrong
answers, filling in right answers. Principal Davis had the teachers raise Level 1 (not meeting
expectations) students up to Level 2 (meeting expectations) and raise Level 2 students up to
Level 3 (exceeding expectations). Some teachers changed the tests in the morning when Moner
handed them out, while others changed the answer sheets in their classroom after the test. The
trusted "chosen ones" changed the tests in the afternoon.
Principal Davis altered answer sheets as well. She only erased in the presence of
Milagros Moner. Principal Davis erased answer sheets in her office wearing gloves so that she
did not leave fingerprints on the test documents.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Jacquelyn Parks (Teacher)
Jacquelyn Parks taught third grade at Venetian Hills and confessed to cheating in 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. Testing Coordinator Milagros Moner had a special group of
people — "the chosen ones." These teachers were either part of the leadership team or were
"veteran" Venetian Hills teachers. Moner did not ask new teachers to cheat.
The group got together in Moner's office each afternoon during the testing period. The
"chosen ones" were Melba Smith, Alma Keen, Angela Bennett, Tyrone Hankerson, Hardy Scott,
Jaquelyn Parks, and Milagros Moner. They met in the windowless office and locked the door.
They took the test themselves and changed the answer sheets when the student's answer was
wrong. They would change the tests of only the grade they taught, but not just their own
students. Some teachers changed the tests each morning in their classrooms. The "chosen ones"
would change the tests in the afternoons and during the makeup testing days. Parks believes that
the teachers that were not directly involved knew what was going on. There were other teachers
changing test answers in their own classrooms.
Moner told the teachers that Principal Davis's instructions were to pull Level 1 students
up to Level 2 and pull Level 2 students up to Level 3. When one of the group remarked, "Why
isn't Ms. Davis in here helping us?" Moner responded, "She does help, she puts on her gloves."
One of teacher Nichole Jones' fifth grade students noticed that the answers on his test
from the day before were not as he indicated. He thought his answers had been changed and told
Ms. Jones. Jones later asked Hankerson, "What is going on around here?"
Parks first cheated in 2004 but believes cheating was going on at Venetian Hills prior to
that. She heard cheating has been going on since Dr. Hall became the Superintendent. The
54
culture at APS is that if you are not a "team player," there are ways that APS can get back at you.
Parks was afraid of retaliation if she did not go along with cheating. "APS is run like the mob."
2. Tyrone Hanker son (Teacher)
Tyrone Hankerson taught fourth grade and admitted to his involvement with cheating in
2009. ILS Milagros Moner told Hankerson that they needed to "clean up" the tests. He knew
that "clean up the tests" meant to change answers from wrong to right on the CRCT. Hankerson
told Moner he was not interested and Moner responded that Principal Davis wanted him to cheat.
Moner kept asking and eventually Hankerson said that he might help. He went to Moner' s office
and Jacquelyn Parks, Karen Batiste, Milagros Moner, and Alma Keen were there with the tests.
He saw them change answers but says he did not assist.
Other teachers at the school knew what was going on. Leslie Badger called him once and
said that she knew they were changing CRCT answers in Moner' s office.
3. Milagros Moner (Testing Coordinator)
Milagros Moner was the Instructional Liaison Specialist in 2009 and was considered the
"Assistant Principal" by many teachers and staff at the school. She was also the testing
coordinator in 2009 and says she cheated in 2008 and 2009.
In 2008, during the week of testing, Principal Davis asked Moner to "check the tests to
see how the students [are] doing." Moner looked at some of the tests and told Davis that the
students were not doing well. Davis told her to get others to help her "look over the tests." She
also directed Moner to bring some tests to her office. Moner recruited others over the course of a
day. She asked Alma Keen, Tyrone Hankerson, Hardy Scott, Jacquelyn Parks, and Melba Smith
because those teachers had been at Venetian Hills long enough to understand the culture of "do
not tell." Dr. Angela Bennett was in the room but Moner does not recall if Bennett erased
answers. Moner put tests in tote bags and took them to Principal Davis' office. Davis was
concerned about leaving fingerprints so she put on gloves to erase answers. Moner helped
Principal Davis change answers in her office. Just the two of them were present.
Principal Davis pressured the teachers to get CRCT scores up. She constantly threatened
teachers with PDPs for low test scores. Everybody knows that being on a PDP means their jobs
are in jeopardy. Principal Davis was a tyrant and the culture at Venetian Hills was basically
"rule by fear." Moner said, "Teachers are afraid of losing their jobs and teachers compel
themselves to do whatever they need to do to make sure that they do not lose their jobs because
their students don't meet or don't exceed on the CRCT. Everybody was in fear. It is not that the
teachers are bad people and want to do it, it is that they are scared."
SRT Executive Director Dr. Davis-Williams liked Principal Davis because she won lots
of awards and made Dr. Davis-Williams look good. Furthermore, Dr. Davis-Williams had a
style similar to Principal Davis. Neither were approachable. Teachers did not feel they could
complain about their principal to Dr. Davis-Williams.
55
4. Melba Smith (Teacher)
Melba Smith taught fourth grade in 2009 and admitted to changing answers on tests in
2008 and 2009. In 2008, Milagros Moner asked Smith if she could stay after school and "look
over the tests." She suspected that Moner was asking her to stay after school to change answers
and thought someone at Venetian Hills was cheating. She noticed over the years that some
students could not read at their grade level but received high CRCT scores.
Principal Davis told Moner to change the tests. Smith changed answers each afternoon
with Tyrone Hankerson, Alma Keen, Jacquelyn Parks, and Angela Bennett. Moner stayed in her
office and helped the others. Hardy Scott was changing the tests, but alone in his classroom.
Teachers Karen Batiste and Wendy Howard gave their students their answers while
administering the test in their classrooms.
Smith told students to review a question when she saw they had marked an incorrect
answer. Smith cheated because if the teachers did not have good test scores, the principal
"would ride [their] back until [they] left."
5. Hardy Scott (Teacher)
Hardy Scott admitted to cheating in 2009 and in several years prior. At the end of the
testing day he would get his tests from Moner and would take them back to his classroom, shut
the door, and change the answers.
6. Dr. Angela Bennett (Teacher)
Angela Bennett confessed to being in the room with the tests and pretending to change
answers in 2009. Moner directed her to help change answers. Bennett believed she had to agree
to change answers. She did not want to do it, so she sat in the room and pretended to erase
answers. She said that Principal Davis knew what they were doing. Hankerson, Keen, Moner,
and Parks were also in Moner' s office changing answers.
The teachers used answer keys to change the answers.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Dr. Clarietta Davis (Principal)
Principal Davis refused to answer our questions, by asserting her Fifth Amendment right
not to incriminate herself. A list of the questions she refused to answer is included as
Attachment A.
We monitored a conversation between a school official and Principal Davis. Tn this
conversation Davis is told that the Governor's investigator knew what happened at Venetian
Hills. Davis did not deny that she cheated; instead, she acted surprised that anyone knew what
happened. Principal Davis said that they were talking about too much and concluded the
conversation.
56
In a meeting, one of the "chosen ones" told Davis that the Governor's investigator
"knows everything." She specifically mentioned that Hardy Scott took tests home: "I don't
know how he [Governor's investigator] knew that ... It's like he [Governor's investigator] was
in the room." Davis did not question the teacher's statement; instead, she asked, "What did the
employees [at Venetian Hills] say?"
When the school official told Principal Davis that the investigators appeared to be "more
interested in principals than in teachers," Davis responded, "That must be why they're waiting to
interview me last." The official told Principal Davis, "I am thinking about telling him what
happened in that room because I am scared." Davis asked, "So you gonna call the others'
[teachers involved in changing answers] names?"
The official continued to talk about how scared he/she was of criminal prosecution when
Principal Davis said, "I still think this is all gonna come back to me." The official said to
Principal Davis that the Governor's investigator talked to the interim principal Mrs. Robinson
several times. Davis responded, "Mrs. Robinson doesn't know anything."
2. Karen Batiste (Teacher)
Karen Batiste denied cheating but said that she knew it was going on.
Batiste heard that there was a recording of Melba Smith giving her students the questions
on the fifth grade writing test. Smith told her students they were questions that would appear on
the test the next week.
Principal Davis told the teachers that they were not allowed to give children a failing
grade. Batiste said Davis is the "meanest person you've ever met." It is not fun being a teacher
because it is all about the test. "Everything is about the test." "I am glad [Governor Perdue' s]
not letting go though .... I'm glad he's not letting go, because if [cheating] doesn't stop now it's
going to continue." "The school system, T don't think they want to get to the bottom of this."
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Principal Clarietta Davis cheated, and directed others to cheat, on the
CRCT from 2004 to 2009. Six teachers admitted that they altered test documents, or were in the
room when others were altering test documents, and that Davis directly, or indirectly, ordered
them to cheat. Davis erased answers, wearing gloves, in her office. We have listened to
monitored conversations with Principal Davis. She does not deny her involvement. Finally,
Principal Davis refused to answer our questions, asserting her Fifth Amendment right not to
incriminate herself.
Milagros Moner, the testing coordinator, cheated on the CRCT at the direction of
Principal Davis. She recruited trusted and veteran teachers to assist. Jacquelyn Parks, Tyrone
Hankerson, Melba Smith, Hardy Scott, Alma Keen, and Angela Bennett cheated on the 2009
CRCT, and in other years. They changed tests for the entire school. Most teachers were aware
of the cheating.
57
We further conclude that Principal Davis failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing
activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for, the 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 CRCT. It is our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other
evidence secured in this investigation, that Principal Davis failed to properly monitor the 2009
CRCT and adequately supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is
responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
58
CLARIETTA DAVIS
You have information concerning cheating at your school on the 2009 CRCT test, don't
you?
You are refusing to provide these investigators with that information, aren't you?
By cheating on the 2009 CRCT, you denied straggling students the help they needed to
succeed?
You directed school employees to cheat on the 2009 CRCT, didn't you?
You coordinated cheating on the 2009 CRCT at your school, didn't you?
You facilitated the ability of school employees to cheat on the 2009 CRCT test, right?
You knew that school employees were cheating on the 2009 CRCT, didn't you?
You provided school employees with access to the student's CRCT tests so that these
school employees could cheat?
You knew that teachers were providing student's with answers to the 2009 CRCT, didn't
you?
You changed student's answers on the 2009 CRCT test, didn't you?
You did not report violations of testing protocol as you were required to do by Georgia
law, did you?
In 2009, you were entrusted with ensuring that school employees act ethically?
Cheating is unethical isn't it?
You instructed your teachers to cheat on the 2009 CRCT didn't you?
You pressured your teachers to cheat on the 2009 CRCT didn't you?
You accepted bonus money from APS based on test scores you knew to be false?
Your school accepted federal money based in part on test scores you knew to be false?
By cheating on the CRCT you denied the State of Georgia an accurate assessment of your
student's academic performance?
By cheating on the CRCT you denied the parents of your students an accurate assessment
of their children's academic performance, didn't you?
By cheating on the CRCT, you denied the children in your care an accurate assessment of
their own academic performance.
59
GIDEONS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
897 Welch Street Principal: Armstead Salters SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30310 Testing Coordinator: Sheridan Rogers
I. INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Gideons Elementary in 2009 and in other years. Sixty
people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Twelve people confessed to
cheating. Cheating at Gideons is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms,
confessions, and witness testimony. Principal Armstead Salters confessed to knowing of
cheating at Gideons. Testing Coordinator Sheridan Rogers confessed to cheating. Both
Principal Salters and Testing Coordinator Rogers instructed witnesses to obstruct our
investigation by directing them not to tell the truth in interviews.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
88.4
25.0
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
61
18
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
21(21)
11(5)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
15.2
4.9
High Flagged Standard Deviation
53.2
8.3
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.4
3.0
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
Since 2001, Principal Salters, Testing Coordinator Sheridan Rogers, and numerous
teachers participated in a coordinated, school-wide cheating scheme. Principal Salters instructed
certain teachers to see Rogers to change students' CRCT answer sheets. Rogers provided
teachers with the students' CRCT answer sheets, the test booklets and answer key transparencies
so the students' answers could be changed. Rogers instructed teachers to prepare answer keys on
transparencies for the different versions of the CRCT. Teachers prepared the answer keys by
talcing the tests themselves and marking correct answers on transparency sheets. Teachers
returned the completed answer keys to Rogers who distributed the answer keys and the students'
CRCT answer sheets to other teachers. Teachers also prompted their students to change answers
during the administration of the test.
Veteran teachers understood that changing students' CRCT answer sheets was expected
at Gideons. They changed the answer sheets of the students taught by newer teachers until the
new teacher was trusted to be brought into the cheating scheme. When they decided a new
teacher was ready, veteran teachers instructed them to "go see Ms. Rogers and check your tests."
60
Not all teachers, veteran or new, participated in the cheating, but the scheme was an open secret
at Gideons Elementary.
One group of teachers took their students' answer sheets to the home of a teacher and
held a "changing party" over the weekend in Douglas County, Georgia. Other teachers changed
their students' answer sheets after hours at school during the testing window.
Principal Salters obstructed this investigation when he instructed teachers not to
cooperate. He said to them, "If anyone asks you anything about this just tell them you don't
know. You did not. Stick with it." Principal Salters also told teachers to "just stick to the story
and it will all go away." Sheridan Rogers told at least one teacher to not say anything to
investigators about CRCT cheating.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Oliver Banks (Teacher)
Oliver Banks admitted to changing answers on the 2008 and 2009 CRCT.
Principal Salters instructed Banks and other teachers to change answers on the 2008 and
2009 CRCT. Banks erased and changed answers in 2008 at Gideons with Bemadine Macon,
Daisey Bowser, and Veronica Jordan. He also erased and changed answers on the 2009 CRCT at
Bernadine Macon's home in Douglas County, Georgia over a weekend along with Macon,
Bowser, Jordan, and Michael Walker.
Principal Salters saw Bowser, Jordan, Macon, and Banks erasing and changing answers
at Gideons. Principal Salters asked Banks, "How is everything going?" He was referring to
erasing and changing answers.
Principal Salters told Banks, Jordan, Macon, and Bowser, "If anyone asks you anything
about this just tell them you don't know. You did not. Stick with it." He also said, "just stick to
the story and it will all go away." Banks told Salters that he could not lie to the GBI. Salters
replied, "They don't know anything about this. They are searchin'. Stick to the fact that y'all
did not make any changes."
2. Daisey Bowser (Teacher)
Daisey Bowser admitted to changing answers on the 2009 CRCT. Sheridan Rogers gave
Bowser CRCT test booklets, students' answer sheets and transparency answer keys. Using the
materials provided by Rogers, Bowser erased and changed 2009 CRCT answer sheets at
Macon's house with Jordan, Walker, and Banks.
3. Veronica Jordan (Teacher)
Veronica Jordan admitted to changing answers on the 2008 and 2009 CRCT.
Jordan testified that Principal Salters instructed teachers to report to Rogers to "check
their tests," which was code for erasing answers. When teachers reported to Rogers, she gave
61
teachers CRCT answer sheets and answer keys to change the answers. Rogers instructed Jordan
to prepare an "answer key" to one version of the CRCT by marking the correct answers on a
blank transparency.
Jordan erased and changed CRCT answers in Rogers' office in full view of Rogers. She
also admitted to changing CRCT answers at Macon's house along with Macon, Banks, and
Walker.
Jordan testified that fourth grade teachers at Gideons also changed answers but could not
provide details. Sheridan Rogers instructed Jordan not to say anything to investigators about
CRCT cheating.
4. Bernadine Macon (Teacher)
Beraadine Macon admitted to changing CRCT answers at her home in Douglas County,
Georgia and at the school.
Walker, Bowser, Banks, and Jordan all went to Macon's home over a weekend and
changed CRCT answers using answer sheet transparencies provided by Rogers. Macon also
testified that Principal Salters called during this investigation to tell her to "hang in there" and
that she would be "ok because she didn't do anything."
5. Michael Walker (Paraprofessional)
Michael Walker admitted to erasing and changing CRCT answers in 2009. Walker
admitted to driving Banks to Macon's house to change CRCT answers with Jordan, Macon, and
Bowser.
6. Treme Ha Donaldson (Teacher)
Tremelia Donaldson admitted to cheating on the 2009 CRCT. Principal Salters told her,
"Do what you need to do. The kids have to pass." Donaldson also testified that teachers at
Gideons have erased and changed answers since 2001. She learned of the cheating conspiracy
when Denethia Weddington-Ward told Donaldson "go see Rogers to check your tests." This was
code for erasing and changing answers. When she "went to see" Rogers, Rogers gave her CRCT
test booklets, students' answer sheets, and nineteen transparency answer keys, one for each test
form. The transparencies consisted of clear sheets of plastic normally used for overhead
projectors, with the correct answers to the 2009 CRCT written on them in marker. Donaldson
used these materials provided by Rogers to erase and change students' answer sheets in her
classroom at Gideons after school.
7. Denethia Weddington-Ward (Teacher)
Denethia Weddington-Ward admitted to erasing and changing students' answer sheets,
both those of her students and those of other teachers.
Weddington-Ward told LaTonya Washington to "go get her tests and answer sheets"
from Rogers to erase and change answer sheets. She believes Washington did so. Rogers gave
62
Weddington-Ward both her own and other teachers' students' test booklets, answer sheets, and
transparencies with the correct answers to use in erasing and changing answer sheets.
We monitored a telephone call between Weddington-Ward and Rogers where Rogers
admitted to giving answer sheets to teachers, but denied knowing what the teachers did with
them. When asked about the current location of the answer sheet transparencies and whether she
destroyed them, Rogers said she "got rid of them," and that she "could legitimize them as
teaching aides."
8. Cheryl Hunt (Teacher)
Cheryl Hunt admitted to erasing and changing answers in Rogers' office and in her own
classroom in 2009, and in other years. Rogers gave Hunt test booklets and students' answer
sheets, as well as transparencies with answers to the CRCT. Hunt stated that Donaldson,
Weddington-Ward, Washington and Neely changed CRCT answers.
9. Irene Ellerbe (Teacher)
Irene Ellerbe admitted to prompting students to change their answers during the CRCT.
Irene Ellerbe asked students "are you sure this is what you want to put down?" multiple times.
In response to her prompting, students erased their answers and changed them to the correct
answer.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Sheridan Rogers (Testing Coordinator)
Rogers admitted to giving test booklets and answer sheets to teachers after Principal
Salters instructed her to do so. She denied any knowledge of answer key transparencies but
stated that blank transparencies were used as teaching aides. Multiple teachers testified that they
received answer keys from Rogers.
On February 22, 2011, we monitored a phone call between Rogers and Denethia
Weddington-Ward. During this call, Weddington-Ward brought up the transparencies by asking
Rogers what she did with them and informing Rogers that investigators were aware of the
transparencies. Rogers responded by saying that she got rid of the transparencies and that she
could "[legitimize those as teaching aides."
2. Camille Neely (Teacher)
Camille Neely stated that Rogers gave her answer sheet transparencies, but she did not
use them because her students did well on the CRCT in 2009. All of Neely's classes were
flagged with standard deviations from the state-wide norms being 9.6 for reading, 5.7 for
language arts and 3.4 for math. She was unable to explain why her students would have been so
far above the state-wide norms for wrong-to-right erasures.
63
3. Armstead Salter s (Principal)
Principal Salters admitted to knowing that Rogers and teachers at Gideons cheated on the
CRCT. He did nothing to stop it. He denied directing Sheridan Rogers, or any teacher, to cheat.
He also denied instructing his teachers not to cooperate with this investigation. Salters
acknowledged that Gideons was his school and that he was responsible for the cheating that went
on there. He denied his involvement in cheating, except to the extent he knew it was occurring.
Principal Salters testified that he never told SRT-2 Executive Director Michael Pitts or
Dr. Beverly Hall that teachers at Gideons cheated. Principal Salters testified that although he
met with Dr. Hall after the Blue Ribbon Commission Report was issued, Hall never asked him if
teachers at Gideons cheated.
Principal Salters met with Pitts in December of 2008 to tell him that he intended to retire.
SRT-3 Executive Director Pitts told him that "a scandal was brewing," and requested he put off
his retirement until after the scandal. Principal Salters agreed.
4. LaTonya Washington (Teacher)
LaTonya Washington testified that she received answer sheets and transparencies from
Sheridan Rogers, but did not use them to erase students' answers. She stated that her students
did well on the 2009 CRCT and she did not need to cheat. None of Washington' s classes were
flagged by GOSA for abnormally high wrong-to-right erasures.
D. Testimony of Additional Witnesses
I. Dr. Beverly Hall (Superintendent)
When Dr. Hall met with Principal Salters after the Blue Ribbon Commission Report she
asked him if cheating occurred at Gideons, and he replied "I don't know," instead of denying
cheating occurred. When we interviewed Dr. Hall, she said that she did not believe teachers in
APS cheated, but that she "sure would like to know what happened at Gideons."
TV. ANALYSTS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude a school-wide conspiracy to erase and change students CRCT answer sheets
occurred at Gideons in 2008, 2009, and other years. We conclude that Principal Salters and
Sheridan Rogers orchestrated this school-wide effort to erase and change students' answer sheets
and ordered teachers to lie to the GBI. We conclude that Irene Ellerbe cheated on the 2009
CRCT test. We conclude that third grade teachers Tremelia Donaldson, Cheryl Hunt, Camille
Neely, and Denethia Weddington-Ward erased and changed students' CRCT answer sheets at the
school in 2008 and 2009. We further conclude that fifth grade teachers Oliver Banks, Daisey
Bowser, Bernadine Macon, Veronica Jordan and Michael Walker erased and changed students'
CRCT answer sheets at the school in 2008, and at Macon's house in Douglas County in 2009.
64
Based on the statistical evidence and the evidence we have found at schools with similar
statistical data, we believe that the teachers in other grade levels also cheated, but we lack
sufficient evidence to determine which additional teachers cheated.
It is also our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence that Principal
Armstead Salters failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing
and test security. This resulted in, and he is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or
erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
65
KENNEDY MIDDLE SCHOOL
225 Griffin St. N W Principal: Dr. Lucious Brown SRT- 1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, GA 303 14-39 17 Testing Coordinator: Tanya Green
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Kennedy Middle in 2009. Fifty people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. One person confessed to cheating on the 2009
CRCT. Cheating at Kennedy is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, a confession
and witness testimony. Principal Brown answered all questions asked of him during his first
interview, but then refused to answer our questions in his second interview by asserting his Fifth
Amendment rights. Principal Brown failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
53.2
6
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
42
5
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
22(13)
4(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
7.8
3.6
Ehgh Flagged Standard Deviation
25.8
3.9
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3
66
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
dKU w im
0 KL"
J.U07U00I /4
DKU w IN
£. AT A
O MA
< 1 171 7Q7<:i
^nAMr 1LJ1N
O KL"
1 ^ ri/iT9fiio^
1 J.U4 /oLMZj
^nAMr 1LJ1N
£ T A
O LA
^ ^/1£/1£TT91
J. J4040 / / ol
prr A A TPTCYVT
C ri A M r IK J IM
O MA
r^T TT> P AM
L, U KKAIN
D KL1
TT7 T7T7T7 T> Q ( W
i£ T>T^
D KL"
1 ^ iot/Ihoti
TP T7T7T7 p C
Jr,r r iLKoLJlN
6. T A
O LA
/I 00019/1/100
4.yzyJo44Zy
O K1J
in 1 9HQ10S
iu. 1 <suy.3zj
A T A
O LA
£ AT A
O MA
1 AO 1 9/1 Q/1 1 T
1V1 rl IL KIN
O KLJ
ML EjI VL.Hr/ KIN
/: T A
D LA
9 riOT^/1 /I /I /IT
ATC^T? A r'TTTTTJW
£. AT A
0 MA
^ 0770^/1<QQ
P TAPFCOAT
O KU
11 0 a n 1 1 /i
P TAf^TtfCfTXT
r J rtL. JV&L-'lN
£ T A
O LA
riQ/1(^0^T9/1
o.uy4ozj / <S4
P TAf^TtfCfTXT
r J rtL. JV&L-'lN
£ AT A
O MA
9 1 ri/lf^T^ ^Q(^
<s. iU4o / j jyo
WTT T TC
O KU
T TQIOfllQf^T
WILLIE
A AT A
D MA
1 flTI im /IOT
ALt, A AIM JJLK
T T>T^
/I 90110A/1T
AT FYA MT^TT T?
ALC A AIM ULK
7 T A
/ LA
1 ©n^rii^/iri 1 9
AT Th YA MT^TT T?
ALL A A1N JJLK
TATA
/ MA
1 Q AAA STHOQ
T7FUX7 A TJT^C
L1J W AKLT>
T AT A
/ MA
0 ^ T<^ 111 T/1
Z J. /Dill /40
KILL
TATA
/ MA
^11 iT/in^ 1
J. jIj /4UD1
ATA r1^'
1V1 ALN
1 f\\J
1 n riTi Q/i/iiT
ATA r^v
T T A
/ LA
1 1 Af\AA 1 1 9Q
1 1.4U441 1
ATA C^\Z
TATA
/ MA
1 0 /1fl/1QTTTQ
1Z.4U4J5 / / /o
P A T? IT TT P
T T A
/ LA
1 i^Ti^im 1 qi
P A TJT^TTP
TATA
/ MA
t nsrii^Qi T<^
f^T? A WT7MP Fl
LKA W r UK JJ
9 AT A
o MA
1 ^n^0T^1/1T
J. JUjZ / J j4/
UA V lo
o MA
j. jjyzzjuo
EASTERLING
8 RD
9.535627614
EASTERLING
8 MA
7.788329721
ELLIS
8 MA
7.774976862
EVANS
8 RD
3.231092674
EVANS
8 MA
4.527173489
LANDRUM
8 MA
7.400048393
LOVETT
8 MA
4.386037999
RAGLAND
8 MA
4.582951024
VINCENT
8 RD
4.805024492
VINCENT
8 LA
3.819640899
VINCENT
8 MA
6.880745321
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Kennedy Middle School was
not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 53.2% for the 2009 CRCT. With state
monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped significantly from
53.2% to 6%.
67
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only four schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Kennedy Middle School.
Third, of the 42 flagged classrooms at Kennedy 29 (69% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and nine classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of wrong-to-right erasures occurred without
adult intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Kennedy Middle School.
Fourth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures, 85.1% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 53.2% of total
classrooms in the school.
Fifth, Principal Lucious Brown directed and participated in an organized scheme to erase
and change students' test answer documents. When he was subpoenaed by us, he refused to
answer questions about his knowledge of, or participation in, cheating and asserted his Fifth
Amendment rights.
Finally, Principal Brown intimidated witnesses in this investigation by requiring the
teachers and staff at Kennedy Middle School to meet with his personal criminal defense attorney
at school, during school hours.
B. Narrative
In 2009, Principal Lucious Brown, School Improvement Specialist Dr. Tameka Goodson,
Secretary Carol Dennis, and Barbara McDaniel participated in a coordinated cheating scheme.
These women moved from West Fulton with Principal Brown when he became Principal at
Kennedy in 2007. Brown directed these individuals to check the students' tests and "make them
right" so that the school could meet targets. Although no evidence exists that Principal Brown
personally erased answers, he was present when Dennis, Goodson and McDaniel carried out his
directive. Moreover, one witness observed Principal Brown carrying tests from the vault to the
conference room after the test period ended for the day. After testing ended, Principal Brown,
Dennis, Goodson and Barbara McDaniel carried the tests from the "vault" into the conference
room or Principal Brown's office and changed student answers on the test. Only Principal
Brown and his secretary, Carol Dennis, had keys to the vault where the tests were stored.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Barbara McDaniel (Teacher)
Following the first or second day of the administration of the CRCT in 2009, Carol
Dennis, Principal Brown's secretary, summoned Barbara McDaniel and Dr. Tameka Goodson to
the conference room where Dr. Brown and Ms. Dennis were located. Dennis asked McDaniel
and Goodson to stay until 4:00 or 5:00 and help change CRCT answer sheets. Dennis explained
that a certain percentage of the tests needed to be "checked" and made right. McDaniel told
them she would have to think about it because she knew what they were doing was wrong.
68
McDaniel described Principal Brown as "like a son to her." She wanted to talk with her
husband about what she was asked to do, but knew he would tell her not to cheat. She wanted to
help Principal Brown. She did not ask her husband.
On the third or fourth day of testing, after the students left school, Dennis, Goodson and
McDaniel stayed at school until approximately 11:00 p.m. to finish changing answers. Principal
Brown was in the room while the others changed answers. McDaniel was ashamed of what they
had done.
2. Michelle Hayes (Teacher)
Michelle Hayes stated that she had no direct knowledge of cheating. However, she noted
that students who could not read would often meet or exceed expectations on the reading portion
of the CRCT. Hayes confronted Principal Brown about this discrepancy in June 2009, but he did
not give her any explanation. In the fall of 2009, Principal Brown suddenly transferred Hayes to
Brown Middle School.
3. Ti ffany Edwards (Teacher)
Tiffany Edwards heard there was cheating at Kennedy and that Principal Brown and his
friends were involved. Teachers talked about the unrealistic jump in math scores. Edwards
heard students talking about teachers giving answers. She does not recall the students' names.
Some teachers complained that their answer sheets were returned to them in a different order
than the teacher left them the day before.
4. Michelle Bowman (Teacher)
Principal Brown ordered teachers to meet with his personal criminal defense attorney in
his office at the school during school hours.
5. France sea Favors (O ffice Clerk)
Francesca Favors stated that during the 2009 CRCT, Tanya Green, the Testing
Coordinator, returned tests to the vault and locked the door. However, Favors observed Dennis,
Principal Brown, Dr. Goodson and Morris going in and out of the vault during the day. Only
Principal Brown and Dennis kept a key to the locked room.
6. Tanya Green (Testing Coordinator)
Tanya Green denied cheating. She did not have a key to the vault where tests were
stored. Only Principal Brown and Dennis kept that key.
7. Matthew Hall (Teacher)
Matthew Hall reported that during test week, Principal Brown ordered everyone to leave
the school by 4:00 p.m. and cancelled after-school activities.
69
8. Margo Morris (Attendance Clerk)
Margo Morris stated that during the 2009 CRCT, Dennis pulled her into her office and
asked Morris to sharpen the pencils. At that time, Morris saw Principal Brown, Barbara
McDaniel, Dr. Goodson and Dennis in the conference room. Morris heard Ms. Favors say "y'all
think I'm stupid. I know y'all are back there with those tests."
9. Rosalin Triple tt (Teacher)
During the 2009 CRCT, Triplett's students raised their hands and reported that their
answers from the previous day had been changed. She reported this to Tanya Green who told
Principal Brown. Finley, another teacher, told Triplett that everything in her test containers was
in disarray when she got it back. Triplett witnessed a confrontation between Principal Brown
and teacher Michelle Hayes. Hayes asked Principal Brown how some of her students could have
passed the CRCT. Principal Brown said "I'm not going to talk about it." Triplett believes
Principal Brown subsequently fired Hayes. Triplett reported that while the GBI was at the
school, Margo Morris was moved from the front office and into a hallway. Triplett overheard a
group of students say that their teacher, Willis, helped them on the test.
10. Robin Banks (Teacher)
During the 2008 CRCT, Ms. Robin Banks went to pick up her tests from the testing
coordinator one morning toward the middle of the test week. She noticed that one of her test
answer booklets was missing, so she went to report it to Dr. Brown. When she got back to the
room where the tests were stored, the book was sitting beside the box. Dr. Brown wanted her to
believe it was just an oversight on her part.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
/. Dr. Lucious Brown (Principal)
When confronted with evidence of his involvement in changing answers, Principal
Lucious Brown denied cheating. When he was subpoenaed for an additional interview, he
refused to answer questions about his participation in, or knowledge of, cheating and asserted his
Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.
2. Carol Dennis (Secretary)
Carol Dennis denied participating in, or having any knowledge of, cheating.
3. Dr. Tameka Goodson (Instructional Coach)
Dr. Tameka Goodson denied any participation in or knowledge of cheating. The GBT
confronted Ms. Goodson with evidence of her involvement in cheating and advised her that lying
to a law enforcement agent was a felony, but if she told the truth she would be offered immunity.
Goodson said she wanted to "make a statement," but wanted an attorney present. Goodson was
given that opportunity, but failed to return with her attorney. The Special Investigators
ultimately served Ms. Goodson with another subpoena. Despite her previous representation that
70
she would like to give a statement to the GBI, during her interview with the Special
Investigators, with her attorney present, Ms. Goodson denied any involvement in or knowledge
of cheating.
E. Other Evidence
• In 2006-2007, the State placed Kennedy Middle on a "Needs
Improvement" list for repeated failure to meet AYP.
• In 2007-2008, Principal Lucious Brown's first year at Kennedy, math
scores jumped in every grade and Kennedy not only made AYP, but met
83% of its targets.
• In 2008-2009, the state removed Kennedy from the Needs Improvement
list.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Principal Lucious Brown, Dr. Tameka Goodson, Carol Dennis and
Barbara McDaniel conspired to erase and change student answer sheets on the 2009 CRCT.
We further conclude that Principal Brown failed in his ultimate responsibility for testing
activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for, the 2009 CRCT.
It is our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this investigation,
that Principal Brown failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT and adequately supervise testing
activities and test security. This resulted in, and he is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting
or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
71
F.L. STANTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1625 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive Principal: Dr. Mario Barber SRL-4 Executive Director: LamaraCotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30314-2207 Lesting Coordinator: Arthurline Laylor
I. INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at F.L. Stanton Elementary in 2009. Twenty-two people
were interviewed at F.L. Stanton, some more than once. One teacher confessed to cheating.
Cheating at F.L. Stanton is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, a confession,
witness testimony, and Principal Mario Barber's refusal to answer questions about cheating.
Principal Barber failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
83.3
7.1
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
35
3
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
13(12)
3(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
12.1
5.2
Fhgh Flagged Standard Deviation
24.4
7.4
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3
3.4
72
B. Flagged Classrooms
y ■ i ii ii t ot
> 7 1 <l 1 III <l 1 II
Test
Df*vi it f~i on
FOSTER
1 RD
6.286587288
HILL
1 RD
7.500066144
HILL
1 LA
10.44392629
HILL
1 MA
8.66682616
DURR
2 RD
5.41699529
DURR
2 LA
5.552714374
DURR
2 MA
4.387625289
GOSHA
2 LA
3.047853543
GOSHA
2 MA
7.146005432
MOODY
2 LA
8.730602629
MOODY
2 MA
6.292689078
BULLOCK
3 RD
5.986352294
BULLOCK
3 LA
7.839884187
BULLOCK
3 MA
9.484205905
WAGNER
3 RD
14.13076082
WAGNER
3 LA
13.30066687
WAGNER
3 MA
14.3635691
WILSON
3 RD
9.837047618
WILSON
3 LA
9.282695136
WILSON
3 MA
4.869839776
CONLEY
4 RD
20.87167223
CONLEY
4 LA
16.54364876
CONLEY
4 MA
14.10174659
CURLEY
4 RD
10.53598496
CURLEY
4 LA
13.361446
CURLEY
4 MA
13.00004071
GAUSE
4 RD
23.58719127
GAUSE
4 LA
14.54204378
GAUSE
4 MA
18.98069243
EDWARDS
5 RD
15.71063404
EDWARDS
5 LA
11.36015746
EDWARDS
5 MA
20.94304662
MCRAE JONES
5 RD
20.73790807
MCRAE JONES
5 LA
24.41721866
MCRAE JONES
5 MA
20.77030433
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that F.L. Stanton Elementary School
was not managed in a way that ensured the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 83.3% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only three schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
no school had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than F.L. Stanton Elementary School.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
sharply, from 83.3% to 7.1%.
Fourth, of the 35 flagged classrooms at F.L. Stanton Elementary School, 32 (91% of the
total) had standard deviations that exceeded five, and 19 classrooms exceeded ten standard
deviations. At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred
without adult intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard
73
deviations the probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations
from the state mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad
scale at F.L. Stanton Elementary School.
Fifth, is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis, which compares
the number of WTR erasures to the total erasures for each student by subject. Of the WTR
erasures at F.L. Stanton, 95.3% were produced by the flagged classrooms, which account for
only 83.3% of the total classrooms in the school.
B. Narrative
In 2009, Principal Mario Barber and Theresa Bell remained at the school after hours and
erased and changed student answers on the CRCT from wrong to right. Principal Barber and
Bell had a very close relationship. Bell frequently acted as Principal Barber's representative in
her absence.
Three separate witnesses saw Principal Barber's and Bell's cars at the school after hours
during test week and thought it was unusual. One of those teachers noticed that her test
documents were not in the same order as they had been when she turned them in to the testing
coordinator the previous day.
Bell denied she was at school after hours, and produced documents showing she was not
there on some days. Bell did not deny cheating, but instead stated that she was afraid of losing
her teaching certificate. Principal Barber refused to answer questions and asserted her Fifth
Amendment right not to incriminate herself.
One teacher confessed that during the test she prompted a student using a non-verbal
signal if she noticed the student had a wrong answer.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Christi Giddens (Teacher)
Christi Giddens stated that she observed Theresa Bell staying late during test week and
thought it was unusual. Giddens recalled that on one occasion during testing when she picked up
her tests in the morning, they were in a different order than when she turned them in the day
before. Giddens denied providing answers to students or erasing answers, but admitted that she
would signal when she noticed a student had a wrong answer.
2. Julian Daniels (Teacher)
Julian Daniels observed Barber and Bell staying late after testing. Daniels thought this
situation was highly unusual.
3. Bonita Summons (Teacher)
Bonita Summons observed Barber and Bell staying late after testing. Summons stated
she thought this situation was highly unusual.
74
4.
Dr. Arthurline Taylor (Testing Coordinator)
Dr. Taylor stated that the tests were stored in a secondary room inside the principal's
office. Prior to 2010, the secondary room did not have a lock on it.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
/. Dr. Mario Barber (Principal)
Principal Barber refused to answer our questions and asserted her Fifth Amendment
rights in response to all questions posed to her, including questions as to whether she participated
in, directed or knew about cheating on the CRCT at F.L. Stanton. She also refused to answer
when asked about staying at the school with Theresa Bell after hours during testing week in
2009. A copy of the questions Principal Barber refused to answer is attached hereto as
Attachment A
2. Theresa Bell (Testing Facilitator)
Theresa Bell referred to herself as the "testing facilitator." She worked very closely with
Principal Barber, attended meetings in her place and acted as her representative. Ms. Bell
initially denied participating in, or having knowledge of, cheating. However, during a second
interview at the school, the GBI confronted her with the allegation that witnesses saw her car and
Dr. Barber's car at the school after hours during test week. Bell became visibly shaken.
Bell did not deny cheating, but stated that she was "afraid of losing [her] teaching
certificate." The GBI informed Bell that she should tell the truth about what happened during
the 2008-2009 CRCT, and Bell again stated that she was "afraid of losing her certification." Ms.
Bell was given a subpoena for a third interview. She retained an attorney and during the third
interview produced ATM receipts and medical records indicating that she was not present at the
school after hours on some days.
E. Other Evidence
CRCT scores at F.L. Stanton declined in 2010 for first, third, fourth, and fifth grades.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Christi Giddens cheated on the 2009 CRCT by telling students when
they had a wrong answer. We further conclude that Principal Mario Barber and Theresa Bell
erased and changed student answer sheets after the tests were concluded each day and after
school hours.
Principal Mario Barber failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing activities and for
ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this investigation, that
Principal Barber failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT and adequately supervise testing
activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying,
misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
75
MARLQ BARBER
You have information concerning cheating at your school on the 2009 CRCT test, don't
you?
You are refusing to provide these investigators with that information, aren't you?
You directed school employees to cheat on the 2009 CRCT, didn't you?
You coordinated cheating on the 2009 CRCT at your school, didn't you?
You facilitated the ability of school employees to cheat on the 2009 CRCT test, right?
You knew that school employees were cheating on the 2009 CRCT, didn't you?
You provided school employees with access to the student's CRCT tests so that these
school employees could cheat?
You knew that teachers were providing student's with answers to the 2009 CRCT, didn't
you?
You changed student's answers on the 2009 CRCT test, didn't you?
In 2009, you were entrusted with ensuring that school employees act ethically?
Cheating is unethical isn't it?
You instructed your teachers to cheat on the 2009 CRCT didn't you?
You pressured your teachers to cheat on the 2009 CRCT didn't you?
You accepted bonus money from APS based on test scores you knew to be false?
Your school accepted federal money based in part on test scores you knew to be false?
By cheating on the CRCT you denied the State of Georgia an accurate assessment of your
student's academic performance?
By cheating CRCT you denied the parents of your students an accurate assessment of
their children's academic performance?
By cheating on the CRCT, you denied the children in your care an accurate assessment of
their own academic performance.
76
PERKERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2040 Brewer Blvd. Principal: Dr. Mable Johnson SRT-1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis- Williams
Atlanta, GA 30315 Testing Coordinator: Tony Allen
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Perkerson Elementary in 2009. Forty-seven people
were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating at Perkerson is evidenced by a
high number of flagged classrooms, witness testimony, and Principal Mable Johnson's refusal to
answer questions about cheating. Principal Johnson was voluntarily interviewed one time.
When questioned for a second time, Johnson invoked her Fifth Amendment rights to every
question asked of her. Johnson failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
66.7
7
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
48
4
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
21(17)
2(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
10.6
4.2
High Flagged Standard Deviation
20.3
5.2
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.7
3.3
77
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teachers
Grades &
Standard
Test
Deviation
AT AA/TTTTTT
ALA1V1 U 1U
1 K1J
O.JOJJDOJOJ
AT AA/TTTTTT
ALA1V1U 1 U
1 T A
1 LA
o.j /^t^tz^tzyz
AT AA/TTTTTT
ALA1V1U 1 U
1 AT A
1 1V1A
y. luo j /
LL W lo
1 T?T>
o.y 104000 /4
T T7\X7TC
1 ,r, W 1?>
1 T A
1 1 ,A
o 711 1 iCQ
ft. / 1 1 1 0.14Z /
T T7\X7TC
1 ATA
1 1V1A
0.J7/J6JJZ/
at a r^v
1 K1J
d.IjZjOjdI'i-
IS /T A IT
1 T A
1 L A
j.uu / /^to^tz
T->T Tf-1 \i T7 TT
1 T3T>
Q "7'l'lSt"7n^St'(^
PT TC^T/T^TT
1 T A
1 LA
y.uj /ujuozo
PT TC^T/T^TT
1 AT A
1 1V1A
I 1 ^Q1 ^0^1
TP T7T7T7 T? C MM
JLr r LK.3
0 T?T>
Z K1J
lo 1 JJ7UJ
JLr r LK.&LJ1M
O T A
Z LA
O /I ^ /IT T3 1
TT7 T7T7T7 T> C fW[
JL1' rLKbLJlN
TATA
Z 1V1A
A/T A TT-TTS
1V1A 1 rilo
O T?Ti
Z KU
1 1 flf^ ntS^I
1 I.UdjZjjdI
A/T A TT-TTC
1V1A 1 rilo
IT A
Z LA
y.y J4Z /z / <s /
A/T A TT-TTC
1V1A 1 rilo
TATA
Z 1V1A
W A V
W A I
0 T?T>
Z KU
iz.z<soz4jyo
\X7 A V
W A I
OTA
Z LA
\\7 A V
TATA
Z 1V1A
T7Ti\X7 A TJT^C
J K1J
TTOT T n\S/ A V
1 T?T>
J KU
iz.zy / /<si<sy
T-TfiT T C\WJ A V
1 AT A
J 1V1A
/I 1 ^ ^ A 0 £
4. 1 /0 J0J4-ZO
TP A/T TCHM
JLlVlloL/LN
y.uz<s joz / /y
TP A/T TCHM
1 T A
.7 1 ,A
0(^77^791 ^
O.ZO / / O / iS 1 J
JLJVlliSLJlN
1 AT A
J 1V1A
7Q91970Q9
0. /yjsjs / zys
ATT JWl A \TF\T
1 T3Ti
Q Q^ylO 1 1 HOI
y.yo4Zi iu<5i
1V1U W AIMJJl
1 T A
J LA
7 Q0i^007^ 1 1
/ .yzozz / j 1 1
A/TT JWf A MT>T
1V1U W AIMJJl
i AT A
J 1V1A
7 AA'iir\AfiAQ
Q T-TfiT? TT7 T?
OA 07/10 1^19
ZU.Z /t-Z 1 j jo
C U("lT? TT7D
1 T A
J LA
1 ^ ^1 7/i ^ri7i
CTJV»T>TT7T>
1 AT A
J 1V1A
1 9 7^791 f!09
T3T A W
4 KL1
1 £ 0(^9^0907
iD.ZOJSJ'y&Z/
T-JT TTT T7T>
rSU 1 LLK
4 RD
lo.M Ju40Uo
1 ATM IN LK
/( T?Ti
4 KL1
on 1/1190*^01
ZU. 14-JoZOZl
WTT T T A A/TC T>
W ILLlAlVlo, 1J
J KL1
1 & (^ ^o^/ini
WTT T T AA/W Ti
VV ILLlAlVlo, 1 J
S A/T A
11 SI 101 999
1 l.Jlj7looo
DAVIS
5 RD
12.27913871
DAVIS
5 MA
11.36464914
DEAS
5 RD
10.35042432
DEAS
5 MA
8.971351964
WILLIAMS, P
5 RD
18.29664333
WILLIAMS, P
5 MA
11.1196125
THOMAS
5 RD
14.01911714
THOMAS
5 MA
10.02938701
TOOKES
5 RD
10.86346983
TOOKES
5 LA
3.707339187
TOOKES
5 MA
4.40641695
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Perkerson Elementary School
was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported to the Georgia
Department of Education.
78
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms was 66.7% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only ten schools in APS with a higher percentage that year.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only two had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Perkerson.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
from 66.7% to 7%.
Fourth, of the 48 flagged classrooms at Perkerson, 45 (93.8% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five and 23 classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations, the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Perkerson.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Perkerson, 91% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
66.7% of the total classrooms in the school.
Last, Principal Johnson condoned cheating at Perkerson. Dr. James Boyce told her about
cheating at her school and she did nothing. SRT-1 Executive Director Sharon Davis-Williams
also knew, and she instructed Dr. Boyce to cover up the cheating. Moreover, Principal Johnson
refused to answer our questions about cheating, and invoked her Fifth Amendment right to
remain silent in response to direct questions from us.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
/. Dr. James Boyce (Education Specialist)
Dr. Boyce worked for Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams at School Reform Team 1. He
monitored testing at Perkerson during the 2009 CRCT. Dr. Boyce witnessed several teachers
giving students the right answers during the testing period. He could not recall the names of any
of the teachers other than LaShaine Blake. He was certain Blake was prompting her students.
(Blake's fourth grade reading class was flagged with a standard deviation of 16.3.) Dr. Boyce
told Principal Johnson about the prompting and she "blew him off" Dr. Boyce noted these
discrepancies on testing forms, but said Davis-Williams instructed him to improperly change the
forms. Dr. Boyce saw the testing coordinator, Tony Allen, by himself with the tests on multiple
occasions.
2. Patricia Williams (Teacher)
Patricia Williams was a fifth grade teacher in 2009. Her reading and math classes were
flagged with standard deviations of 18 and 11 respectively. She would collect the tests in a
specific order at the end of the day. Williams stated that the tests would be in a different order
when they came back to her the next morning. She says that Principal Johnson did not tell the
teachers how the students scored in 2009, which she felt was highly unusual. Principal Johnson
79
directed the teachers to give investigators from the Blue Ribbon Commission reasons why the
students did well on the tests. Johnson provided the teachers with explanations for the high
scores, such as school instructional programs. Williams admitted that she erased stray marks.
She was surprised that numerous "at risk" students passed the CRCT in 2009.
3. Shaun Lewis (Teacher)
Shaun Lewis was a first grade teacher for the 2009 CRCT. In 2009, the tests were kept in
a conference room next to Principal Johnson's office. At the first staff meeting of the 2008-2009
school year, Johnson posted the prior year's CRCT scores for all teachers to see. This
embarrassed some teachers based on their student's performance. Lewis said that first grade
teachers were surprised that some of their students passed. Most first grade teachers thought
answers were changed by either Johnson, Testing Coordinator Tony Allen or at the Brewer
Center when the tests were returned.
4. Jocelyn Mack (Teacher)
During the 2009 CRCT, Jocelyn Mack was a first grade teacher. Her reading and
language arts classes were flagged for high wrong-to-right erasures with standard deviations of
six and five. Principal Johnson asked Mack if she wanted her tests early. Mack received her
tests by 7:00 a.m., when they normally were not distributed until 8:15 a.m. Mack also was told
to erase stray marks, but was not comfortable doing so. Tony Allen erased stray marks for Mack
and other teachers.
Mack was surprised that two of her students passed the 2009 CRCT. One student sat
under a table, then randomly filled in answers and still passed. There was a student Mack
wanted to keep in first grade at the request of the student' s parent. Johnson said the student had
to be promoted to second grade because the student passed the CRCT. Several students passed
first grade reading but are now struggling to read in the third grade. Everyone at the school was
afraid of Johnson.
5. Edia Andrews (Teacher)
Edia Andrews was a second grade teacher during the 2009 CRCT. She said Tony Allen
and Principal Johnson erased stray marks so the teachers did not have to. She heard that Johnson
or Allen changed the students' answers. None of Andrews' classes were flagged for high wrong-
to-right erasures.
6. Olufunke Oyebanjo Alamuta (Teacher)
Olufunke Oyebanjo Alamuta was a first grade teacher in 2009. All three of Alamuta' s
classes were flagged in reading, language arts and math with standard deviations of 8.3, 6.5 and
9. 1. Alamuta picked up his tests early each morning from Principal Johnson and Tony Allen and
erased stray marks. He was surprised that children with disabilities received high scores.
80
7. Crystal Cleveland-Thomas (Teacher)
Crystal Cleveland-Thomas was a fifth grade teacher during the 2009 CRCT. She had two
subjects flagged in reading and math with standard deviations of fourteen and ten. She received
her tests early each morning from Principal Johnson and Tony Allen. Cleveland-Thomas erased
stray marks as she was instructed to do and was surprised when some students passed.
8. Marcus Bishop (Paraprofessional)
Marcus Bishop was a paraprofessional for kindergarten during the 2009 CRCT and did
not participate in testing. He heard teachers talking about behavior problems during testing days
but yet these students had abnormally high test scores.
9. Alicia Booker-Duradia (Paraprofessional)
Alicia Booker-Duradia was a kindergarten paraprofessional during 2009 CRCT testing.
She said Principal Johnson changed the testing procedures in 2009 by not requiring proctors in
the testing room, instead using hall monitors. Booker-Duradia was surprised at the high test
scores posted due to the amount behavioral problems. Previous principal Dr. Rowe was forced
to resign because of low test scores.
10. The following people testified that they generally had no knowledge of
cheating but that there were one or more students in their class whose
passing scores surprised them.
Robin Holloway (third grade teacher); Dorcas Muwandi (third grade teacher);
Keyaneshia Tanner (fourth grade teacher); Gloria McCullough-Wright (fifth grade teacher); and
Carla Davis (fifth grade teacher).
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Mable Johnson (Principal)
Principal Mable Johnson was interviewed the first time with her counsel present and she
answered questions. The 2008-2009 school year was her first at Perkerson after transferring to
Perkerson from Tullwater Elementary School. Tullwater closed the previous year. She denied
any knowledge of cheating on the CRCT test. Only Tony Allen and Johnson had access to the
tests after they were collected from the teachers. She once saw Allen by himself in the room
where the tests were stored. If answers were changed, it would have been done by Allen,
although Johnson did not think he would change student's answers. She trusts Allen. Johnson
had no explanation for the high number of erasures.
During her second interview, Principal Johnson invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and
refused to answer all the questions asked. A copy of the questions she refused to answer is
included as Attachment A.
81
2. Tony Allen (Testing Coordinator)
Tony Allen was the testing coordinator for Perkerson during the 2009 CRCT and was
interviewed twice during the investigation. He answered all questions asked of him during both
interviews. Only he and Johnson had access to the tests after they were collected from the
teachers. He denied that he changed any student's answers, or that he had any knowledge of
answers being changed.
Allen erased stray marks. While he was packing the tests to be returned to the Brewer
Center, he noticed a lot of erasures and smears on the tests. One girl sat under her desk, refusing
to take the test, but nevertheless passed. If someone changed answers, it could not have been the
teachers because they would not have had time. It would have to be Principal Johnson because
he did not do it. Allen said there is no question in his mind that something happened, but he did
not see anything. He "knew in his heart" that cheating occurred.
3. Lashaine Blake
During the 2009 CRCT testing, Blake was a fourth grade teacher. She testified that she
had no knowledge of cheating. She attributed her high wrong-to-right erasures to testing
strategies she taught the children. Blake also denied being close to Principal Johnson. During
her second interview, Blake told investigators that she saw Lera Middlebrooks, a proctor,
pointing to the questions and prompting students to change their answers during testing.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Principal Mable Johnson cheated on the 2009 CRCT. She did not offer
any alternate explanation for the erasures and refused to answer our questions. Tony Allen
assisted Principal Johnson in the altering of test documents. It is further our conclusion that
LaShain Blake cheated on the 2009 CRCT. Principal Mable Johnson also failed to properly
monitor the 2009 CRCT and adequately supervise testing activities and test security. This
resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the
results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
82
MABLE JOHNSON
You have information concerning cheating at your school on the 2009 CRCT test, don't
you?
You are refusing to provide these investigators with that information, aren't you?
By cheating on the 2009 CRCT, you denied struggling students the help they needed to
succeed?
You directed school employees to cheat on the 2009 CRCT, didn't you?
You coordinated cheating on the 2009 CRCT at your school, didn't you?
You facilitated the ability of school employees to cheat on the 2009 CRCT test, right?
You knew that school employees were cheating on the 2009 CRCT, didn't you?
You provided school employees with access to the student's CRCT tests so that these
school employees could cheat?
You changed student's answers on the 2009 CRCT test, didn't you?
You did not report violations of testing protocol as you were required to do by Georgia
law, did you?
In 2009, you were entrusted with ensuring that school employees act ethically?
Cheating is unethical isn't it?
You instructed your teachers to cheat on the 2009 CRCT didn't you?
You pressured your teachers to cheat on the 2009 CRCT didn't you?
You accepted bonus money from APS based on test scores you knew to be false?
Your school accepted federal money based in part on test scores you knew to be false?
By cheating on the CRCT you denied the State of Georgia an accurate assessment of your
student's academic performance?
By cheating CRCT you denied the parents of your students an accurate assessment of
their children's academic performance?
By cheating on the CRCT, you denied the children in your care an accurate assessment of
their own academic performance.
The State of Georgia entrusted you to educate the children in your care, right?
The children of your school entrusted you to educate them?
83
By cheating on the CRCT, you violated the trust placed in you by the State of
Georgia, the parents of your students and the children these parents placed your care?
84
CONNALLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1654 S Alvarado SW Principal: Mimi Robinson SRT-1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis- Williams
Atlanta GA 303 11-2637 Testing Coordinator: Wanda Moore- Williams
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
We conclude that cheating occurred on the CRCT at Connally Elementary in 2009.
Forty -four people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. One teacher confessed
to cheating. Cheating at Connally is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, a
confession, witness testimony, and Principal Mimi Robinson's refusal to answer questions about
cheating. Principal Robinson failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
70.5
9.9
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
55
8
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
20(18)
5(2)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
11.5
4.9
High Flagged Standard Deviation
27.6
11.1
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3
3.1
85
gged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
HARBOUR
1 RD
4.989645814
HARBOUR
1 LA
5.948463026
HARBOUR
1 MA
5.123165044
HASSAN
1 MA
10.29977713
SANDERS
1 LA
4.795188887
SANDERS
1 MA
5.250436483
BAILEY
2 RD
3.042883907
BAILEY
2 LA
3.012080598
BAILEY
2 MA
5.053521828
PHARR
2 MA
3.704999627
ROFIE
2 RD
11.13795134
ROFIE
2 LA
4.279818594
ROFIE
2 MA
11.44561239
WILSON
2 RD
13.88070319
WILSON
2 LA
5.396477417
WILSON
2 MA
14.38656966
MCCLOUD
3 RD
18.07141354
MCCLOUD
3 LA
13.27374433
MCCLOUD
3 MA
16.56172273
PAUL
3 RD
14.68962972
PAUL
3 LA
14.04421981
PAUL
3 MA
16.12151382
SYLVESTER
3 RD
12.09258306
SYLVESTER
3 LA
9.47995225
SYLVESTER
3 MA
5.506745306
WILLIAMS
3 RD
27.58655485
WILLIAMS
3 LA
25.32523529
WILLIAMS
3 MA
23.01671268
BRAMWELL
4 RD
9.255002155
BRAMWELL
4 LA
3.532059716
BRAMWELL
4 MA
6.792958536
BUTLER
4 RD
19.70970725
BUTLER
4 LA
16.62610924
BUTLER
4 MA
15.40790528
FULFORD
4 RD
17.23554221
FULFORD
4 LA
10.86630583
FULFORD
4 MA
10.92209498
KING
4 RD
6.909275388
KING
4 LA
6.673814443
KING
4 MA
5.56832219
TAYLOR
4 RD
17.03092435
TAYLOR
4 LA
14.08628719
TAYLOR
4 MA
14.77419759
DARVILLE
5 RD
16.06406154
DARVILLE
5 LA
11.2401808
DARVILLE
5 MA
12.08839125
FRANKLIN
5 RD
13.34900034
FRANKLIN
5 LA
8.524406345
FRANKLIN
5 MA
13.49814414
LEITNER
5 RD
7.764803562
LEITNER
5 LA
3.026178452
LEITNER
5 MA
5.355609079
MATHIS
5 RD
27.23956893
MATHIS
5 LA
18.18849872
MATHIS
5 MA
14.06163679
86
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Connally Elementary School
was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 70.5% for the 2009 CRCT. With state
monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped significantly from
70.5% to 9.9%.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only one school had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Connally.
Third, of the 55 flagged classrooms at Connally, 47 (85% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and 32 classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of wrong-to-right erasures occurred without
adult intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations, the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Connally Elementary School.
Fourth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures 94% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for 70.5% of the total
classrooms in the school.
B. Narrative
One witness observed Testing Coordinator Wanda Moore-Williams, James Howard and
Michael Robinette in an office with the tests erasing answers. All three deny any involvement
with cheating. However, only two individuals had access to the tests - Ms. Williams and
Principal Mimi Robinson. Principal Mimi Robinson pled the Fifth Amendment in response to
our questions about her participation in, knowledge of, or direction to cheat on the CRCT.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Joyce Bucklen (Paraprofessional)
Joyce Bucklen observed James Howard, Wanda Moore- Williams, and Michael Robinette
in Principal Robinson's office and it "looked like they were erasing on the test." Each person
had a stack of tests in front of them. At the end of the day, Bucklen heard Howard say he
changed the tests to get the bonus money. Bucklen stated that Howard would stand in the hall
during testing and warn teachers who were administering the test if people were coming down
the hall. Bucklen also observed Howard do this in prior years.
87
2. Bobbi Garlington (School Improvement Specialist)
Bobbi Garlington states she "heard" that Moore-Williams, Robinette and Howard were in
Robinson's office, but does not recall where she heard this information.
3. Renard McCloud (Teacher)
Renard McCloud recalled that on the 2008 CRCT, he placed his students' answer sheets
in alphabetical order at the end of the test day and returned them to the testing coordinator.
When he picked them up the following morning, the answer sheets were out of order.
4. latasha Wilson (Teacher)
Latasha Wilson admitted that when a student in her class bubbled two answers on the
same question, Moore-Williams directed her to erase both answers and allow the student to
answer the question again.
5. Michael Darville (Early Intervention)
Michael Darville stated that a student reported to him that Gwen Bramwell improperly
assisted students on the test.
6. Violet Franklin (Teacher)
Violet Franklin stated that a student reported to her that Gwen Bramwell improperly
assisted students on the test.
7. Klarissa Hightower (Teacher)
Klarissa Hightower stated that a student reported to her that Gwen Bramwell improperly
assisted students on the test.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Mimi Robinson (Principal)
Principal Robinson asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in
response to each question asked, including specific questions about her involvement in, and
knowledge of, cheating at Connally. A copy of the questions Principal Robinson refused to
answer is included as Attachment A.
2. Wanda Moore-Williams (Testing Coordinator)
Wanda Moore-Williams denied erasing student answers or engaging in any other form of
cheating. She stated that the only time she was in the office with Howard and Robinette was
during ITBS testing. Howard and Robinette assisted Moore- Williams in packing up the
students' ITBS tests because Moore-Williams could not lift anything due to a medical condition.
Moore- Williams believes that Bucklen falsely accused her of changing answers because of a
88
personal vendetta against Moore-Williams. She denied ever instructing a teacher to erase a
students' answer or allowing a student to answer the question again.
3. James Howard (Band Director)
James Howard denied cheating. He stated that he assisted Moore-Williams with the
ITBStest.
4. Michael Robinette (Hands on Atlanta)
Michael Robinette denied cheating or being in an office with Moore-Williams erasing
answers. Robinette said he would erase stray marks and darken ovals that had already been
answered.
5. Gwen Bramwell (Teacher)
Gwen Bramwell denied cheating on the CRCT.
E. Other Evidence
• Connally met AYP in school years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-
2009.
• In 2009-2010, Connally did not meet AYP. The percentage of classrooms
flagged for WTR erasures decreased from 70.5% in 2009 to 9.9% in 2010.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that teachers and administrators erased and changed student answer
documents on the 2009 CRCT at Connally Elementary, but we lack sufficient evidence to say
which people erased and changed. We also conclude that Gwen Bramwell cheated. Principal
Mimi Robinson asserted her Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer our questions.
We conclude that Principal Robinson failed to adequately monitor the 2009 CRCT.
Principal Mimi Robinson failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing activities and for
ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this investigation, that
Principal Robinson failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT and adequately supervise testing
activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying,
misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
89
MIMI ROBINSON
You have information concerning cheating at your school on the 2009 CRCT test, don't
you?
You are refusing to provide these investigators with that information, aren't you?
You directed school employees to cheat on the 2009 CRCT, didn't you?
You coordinated cheating on the 2009 CRCT at your school, didn't you?
You facilitated the ability of school employees to cheat on the 2009 CRCT test, right?
You knew that school employees were cheating on the 2009 CRCT, didn't you?
You provided school employees with access to the student's CRCT tests so that these
school employees could cheat?
You knew that teachers were providing student's with answers to the 2009 CRCT, didn't
you?
You changed student's answers on the 2009 CRCT test, didn't you?
You did not report violations of testing protocol as you were required to do by Georgia
law, did you?
In 2009, you were entrusted with ensuring that school employees act ethically?
Cheating is unethical isn't it?
You instructed your teachers to cheat on the 2009 CRCT didn't you?
You pressured your teachers to cheat on the 2009 CRCT didn't you?
You accepted bonus money from APS based on test scores you knew to be false?
Your school accepted federal money based in part on test scores you knew to be false?
By cheating on the CRCT you denied the State of Georgia an accurate assessment of your
student's academic performance?
By cheating CRCT you denied the parents of your students an accurate assessment of
heir children's academic performance?
By cheating on the CRCT, you denied the children in your care an accurate assessment of
their own academic performance.
90
USHER/COLLIER HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
631 Harwell Road, N.W. Principal: Gwendolyn Rogers SRT-4 Executive Director: TamaraCotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30318 Testing Coordinator: Donald Bullock
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Usher Elementary in 2009. Forty-three people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. Three teachers confessed to cheating at the
direction of the test coordinator, Donald Bullock. Cheating at Usher is evidenced by a high
number of flagged classrooms, confessions and witness testimony. Principal Gwendolyn Rogers
failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2(109
2011)
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
78.4
13.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
40
8
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
14(14)
5(2)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
18.5
4.74
Fhgh Flagged Standard Deviation
38.1
5.8
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.4
91
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teachers
Grades &
Standard
Test
Deviation
BROOKS
1 RD
17.95822191
BROOKS
1 LA
14.78425145
BROOKS
1 MA
16.28163999
HOLLAND
1 RD
9.053141313
HOLLAND
1 LA
9.06061194
HOLLAND
1 MA
6.662318539
SOYINKA
1 RD
10.84326451
SOYINKA
1 LA
15.16342855
SOYINKA
1 MA
12.81760464
ZACHERY
2 RD
3.110352653
ZACHERY
2 MA
7.728348335
BURNEY WATSON
3 RD
24.83074131
BURNEY WATSON
3 LA
8.113355496
BURNEY WATSON
3 MA
11.71760927
LOVETT
3RD
26.70142647
LOVETT
3 LA
9.176189494
LOVETT
3 MA
10.01352536
SANDERS
3 RD
22.46947552
SANDERS
3 LA
14.14114288
SANDERS
3 MA
22.0128703
SMITH
3RD
32.46467819
SMITH
3 LA
12.85840002
SMITH
3 MA
7.866562513
GREEN D
4 RD
15.57168685
GREEN D
4 LA
3.398073475
JACKSON
4 RD
17.20925912
JACKSON
4 LA
10.21667976
JACKSON
4 MA
7.181248635
WARE
4 RD
21.71258285
WARE
4 LA
22.97407218
WARE
4 MA
31.1458192
ARONSON
5 RD
37.44090207
ARONSON
5 LA
30.77499827
ARONSON
5 MA
38.11328458
BRADFORD
5 RD
35.93530231
BRADFORD
5 LA
26.16562644
BRADFORD
5 MA
37.57052406
LADRIE
5 RD
34.68063584
LABRIE
5 LA
22.11837313
LABRIE
5 MA
20.47356742
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that educators at Usher cheated on
the 2009 CRCT.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 78.4% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only four schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state talcing the 2009 CRCT,
no school had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Usher.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
significantly from 78.4% to 13.3%.
92
Fourth, of the 40 flagged classrooms at Usher, 38 had standard deviations that exceeded
five (95% of the total), and 30 (75% of the total) classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations.
At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at this
school.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Usher, 95.2% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
78.4% of the total classrooms in the school.
Finally, three teachers testified that testing coordinator Donald Bullock encouraged and
allowed teachers to erase and change students' CRCT answer sheets. Principal Rogers knew
Bullock improperly provided access to the CRCT materials when he announced over the school
intercom that teachers could keep their tests beyond the testing period.
B. Narrative
In 2009, Testing Coordinator Donald Bullock, and numerous teachers participated in
coordinated, schoolwide cheating. Testing Coordinator Bullock announced that teachers could
pick up their tests early before the test began and keep them until the end of the school day.
Principal Gwendolyn Rogers was present in the building when Bullock made this announcement
and should have been aware that Mr. Bullock distributed the tests early. Mr. Bullock also
allowed teachers to retrieve their tests in the afternoons after testing ended so that they could
erase students' answers and change them from wrong to right. Specifically, Mr. Bullock
approached numerous teachers and asked them how their students performed on the CRCT that
morning. He then asked the teachers whether they needed to "review" the students' tests to
make sure the students performed well and met targets. The teachers said they understood that
Mr. Bullock meant that the teachers should change student answers. If a teacher agreed to
"review" the tests or "stay late," Mr. Bullock would take the tests and answer documents to the
teacher's classroom in the afternoon after testing ended for the day. Mr. Bullock placed the tests
in his briefcase, dropped them off at each teacher's classroom and then retrieved them from each
teacher, placing them back in his briefcase.
Prior to the CRCT, Dr. Rogers required the teachers to make a list of their students and
indicate whether the teacher expected that the student would score high, middle or low. The
teachers provided this list to Principal Rogers prior to the CRCT. Principal Rogers threatened to
put any teacher on a PDP who did not have good CRCT scores. She stated to the staff: "If
Johnny does not know how to read, he had better know how on test day."
There was tremendous pressure on the teachers to meet targets. Teachers said they feared
for their jobs if their students failed to meet targets. Other teachers stated that they changed
answers so that they would be recognized by the school for good test scores.
Several teachers admitted being surprised by how well their students performed on the
CRCT.
93
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Diane Green (Teacher)
Diane Green changed answers on the 2009 CRCT at Usher. Ms. Green stated that she
corrected the students' answers because she wanted to get recognized by the school for good test
scores in reading. A known consequence for poor test results within APS is being placed on a
PDP. Donald Bullock served as Testing Coordinator at Usher for the first and only time in 2009.
Bullock made the tests accessible to teachers in order to change student answers by providing the
tests early on each day of testing or allowing them to retain the tests after the testing period
ended. On one occasion, Mr. Bullock returned the test to Ms. Green after the test period ended
using a book bag. He brought them to her classroom where she kept them for approximately
thirty minutes and changed answers. Mr. Bullock then came back around to collect the tests.
Ms. Green stated that she only changed the students' tests who had previously been identified as
"exceeds expectations" on the CRCT because she wanted to make sure they stayed in that
category. Ms. Green told Mr. Bullock that she was afraid, and he told her, "you don't let anyone
know that you did it."
2. Mary Ware (Teacher)
On at least two days during the 2009 CRCT Mr. Bullock delivered Mary Ware's tests
back to her in her classroom after the students left for the day. Mr. Bullock told her that she
needed to meet targets. Ms. Ware changed student answers in her classroom. Mr. Bullock then
returned to her classroom to collect the tests. Mr. Bullock also directed Ms. Ware to a teacher
workroom where he instructed her to check the answers of other students in the same grade level.
3. Stacy Smith (Teacher)
Stacy Smith confessed to erasing student answers on the 2009 CRCT and changing them
from wrong to right. Tn 2009, Mr. Bullock approached Ms. Smith after the test period was over
and asked whether Ms. Smith was staying after school. Mr. Bullock told Ms. Smith to look over
the tests and see how the students did. Mr. Bullock told Ms. Smith "If you want I can make sure
your children do well. If you want to get the tests back let me know." Mr. Bullock delivered the
student answer documents and tests to Ms. Smith's classroom where Ms. Smith changed student
answers from wrong to right on the reading portion of the test. Mr. Bullock returned to Ms.
Smith's classroom and retrieved the student answer documents and tests. Ms. Smith changed
answers because Dr. Rogers put incredible pressure on the teachers to meet targets and told them
that teachers who did not have good CRCT scores would be placed on a PDP.
4. Joe Sanders (Teacher)
Sanders denied that he cheated but stated that Mr. Bullock approached him three different
times during the 2009 CRCT and asked him whether he wanted to keep his tests and look over
them to make sure his students did well. Mr. Bullock was more persistent on reading days than
on math and science days. Sanders told Mr. Bullock he did not want to keep his tests. Two
other third grade teachers, Ms. Burney and Ms. Lovett, as well as a fifth grade teacher, Ms.
Warner, told him that they had also been approached by Mr. Bullock.
94
5. Sheretha Lovett (Teacher)
Lovett denied any knowledge of cheating.
6. Jessica Watson-Bur ney (Teacher)
Watson-Burney denied any knowledge of cheating.
7. Monique Campbell (Teacher)
At faculty meetings, Dr. Rogers told the teachers that they would be placed on a PDP for
low test performance and that this message came to Rogers from Executive Director Tamara
Cotman.
8. Stephanie Warner (Teacher)
Warner states that Mr. Bullock once asked her if she needed to keep her tests a little
longer after the students took a particular section. Warner declined and asked, "why would I?"
Mr. Bullock said, "Oh, just checking" and never approached her about it again.
9. Brittany Aronson (Teacher)
Aronson taught fifth grade at Usher in 2009. Her class had an unusually high amount of
erasures, but she denied that she had any involvement with cheating. She recalled being
surprised by how many children did well in her class. She stated that one child in particular was
doing very poorly in school and she recommended that the child receive special education
instruction. Ms. Aronson stated that this particular student not only passed the CRCT, but
exceeded. Ms. Aronson stated that in a staff meeting principal Rogers told the staff that "if
Johnny does not know how to read, he had better know how on test day." Ms. Aronson states
that principal Rogers ordered her to change certain students' grades from Ds and Fs to Cs.
10. Tiffany LeBree (Teacher)
LeBree denied having any knowledge of cheating, but confirmed that principal Rogers
stated in a staff meeting that "little Johnny may not be able to read now, but he better be able to
read on test day."
11. Ameer ah Malcolm-Hill (Teacher)
Malcolm Hill confirmed that Donald Bullock made an announcement that the CRCT tests
could be picked up early and kept until the end of the day. Ms. Malcolm-Hill believes that
principal Rogers knew this announcement had been made, as it was heard by all personnel in the
building.
95
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Gwendolyn Rogers (Principal)
Principal Rogers denied participating in, or having knowledge of, cheating on the 2009
CRCT or any other year. She denied ever making a statement in a faculty meeting that "if
Johnny can't read he'd better be able to read on test day." She denied having any knowledge
that Mr. Bullock allowed teachers to pick up tests early or keep them late, and denied that she
ever heard Mr. Bullock make any such announcement over the P. A. system.
2. Donald Bullock (Testing Coordinator)
Mr. Bullock denied participation in, or knowledge of, cheating. He never allowed
teachers to pick up tests early or keep them late. He also denied approaching any teacher about
retrieving their tests after hours and changing answers.
E. Other Evidence
• Several teachers stated that they were surprised that so many students in
their class passed the CRCT.
• Numerous teachers stated that Dr. Rogers and the APS Administration
placed unreasonable pressure on them to meet targets, or be placed on a
PDP or lose their job.
• Discrepancies exist among some teachers' testimony. While some
teachers went to the conference room on the morning of testing to pick up
their tests and sign them out early, others remained in their classroom and
Mr. Bullock or another individual delivered the tests to their class.
• Usher made AYP from 2006-2009, but did not in 2010.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Testing Coordinator Donald Bullock and Principal Rogers directed and
orchestrated a schoolwide scheme to erase and change student answer sheets. Mr. Bullock
provided teachers access to student answer documents by allowing them to pick up tests early,
keep them throughout the day, or by returning tests to certain teachers each day after the testing
period ended. Bullock instructed teachers to change answers to make sure their students made
targets. We further conclude that Diane Green, Mary Ware and Stacy Smith cheated on the 2009
CRCT.
We found no direct evidence that flagged fifth grade teachers erased and changed student
answer sheets. However, indirect evidence of cheating exists in those grades based on the
testimony of Tiffany LeBree and others who testified that Bullock approached them and asked
them to keep their tests after the test period ended. The statistical probability of even the lowest
wrong-to-right standard deviations present in these classes, in conjunction with Mr. Bullock's
practice in other grades of directing teachers to change student answers, as well as the culture of
96
intimidation created by Principal Rogers and Bullock, lead us to believe that at least some of the
first, second and fifth grade teachers erased and changed student answer sheets. Even if the
teachers did not change his or her own student answers, based upon the above evidence, we
conclude that another teacher or Mr. Bullock changed the students' answers.
It is also our conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence that Principal
Rogers failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing activities
and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or
erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
97
PEYTON FOREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
301 Peyton Road, SW Principal: Karen Barlow- Brown SRT- 1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, Georgia 30311 Testing Coordinator: Cornelia Primous
I. INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Peyton Forest Elementary in 2009. Forty-seven
people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating at this school is
evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms and witness testimony. Many teachers were
involved in the cheating and Principal Karen Barlow-Brown knew of and encouraged cheating.
Principal Karen Barlow-Brown failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
86.1
26.1
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
62
18
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
22(20)
10(5)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
11.9
6.0
High Flagged Standard Deviation
34.4
14
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.9
3.2
98
gged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
FULLER
1 RD
6.845316639
FULLER
1 LA
7.721533846
FULLER
1 MA
5.238670023
MANNING
1 RD
13.7723999
MANNING
1 LA
9.724302665
MANNING
1 MA
12.40459958
MCRAE JACKSON
1 RD
5.305964802
MCRAE JACKSON
1 LA
7.014674263
MCRAE JACKSON
1 MA
6.806217113
MERRITT
1 RD
7.329495331
MERRITT
1 LA
6.93873241
MERRITT
1 MA
6.590727549
WILEY
1 RD
5.622259282
WILEY
1 LA
6.190539421
WILEY
1 MA
10.87495625
BICKHAM
2 RD
15.21267896
BICKHAM
2 LA
15.74843919
BICKHAM
2 MA
22.54176257
CAGLE
2 LA
4.523932656
HERARD
2 RD
6.062562011
HERARD
2 LA
11.4619935
HERARD
2 MA
8.160896224
LAWSHEA
2 RD
12.03279573
LAWSHEA
2 LA
16.90360985
LAWSHEA
2 MA
14.60836393
COLLIER
3 RD
6.806191242
COLLIER
3 LA
10.77508464
COLLIER
3 MA
3.997514131
HARRIS
3RD
7.709715267
HARRIS
3 LA
7.19057874
HARRIS
3 MA
5.600461058
JAMES
3 LA
13.2243945
WALKER
3RD
12.25766118
WALKER
3 LA
14.67697977
WALKER
3 MA
8.80635491
WOODS
3 RD
10.7826517
WOODS
3 LA
9.760537304
WOODS
3 MA
8.429190928
BATTLE
4 RD
24.03628557
BATTLE
4 LA
15.03660444
BATTLE
4 MA
12.07701994
CAMPBELL
4 RD
4.89549029
CAMPBELL
4 LA
9.162667904
CAMPBELL
4 MA
7.977518957
WACKERMAN
4 RD
15.85135131
WACKERMAN
4 LA
23.63240343
WACKERMAN
4 MA
23.22866993
WEAVER
4 RD
12.37150789
WEAVER
4 LA
12.48255027
WEAVER
4 MA
19.43110253
BROWN
5 RD
12.27913871
BROWN
5 LA
21.19101291
BROWN
5 MA
16.2515037
MORRIS
5 RD
30.35376941
MORRIS
5 LA
13.72581941
MORRIS
5 MA
3.728938885
PASCHAL
5 RD
34.44880292
PASCHAL
5 LA
10.56260183
PASCHAL
5 MA
10.65198285
PATTERSON
5 RD
17.50383665
PATTERSON
5 LA
10.30954442
PATTERSON
5 MA
9.93931656
99
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Peyton Forest Elementary
School was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 86.1% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only two schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state talcing the 2009 CRCT,
no school had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Peyton Forest Elementary School.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
significantly from 86. 1% to 26. 1%.
Fourth, of the 62 flagged classrooms at this school, 59 (95% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and 34 classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Peyton Forest Elementary School.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures, 97.1% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for 86.1% of the total
classrooms in the school.
Finally, witnesses testified that they heard a select group of teachers were changing
answers on the CRCT after school and on the weekends. Cynthia James testified that Olivia
Harris gave her a copy of the 2008 CRCT so that she could use it to prepare her students. Olivia
Harris should not have had a copy of the 2008 CRCT because it was still secured. Principal
Barlow-Brown knew that Harris gave the test to James. A witness saw teachers cheating on the
district benchmark assessment tests and the Fifth Grade Writing Test.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Cynthia James (Teacher)
In the fall of 2008, Olivia Harris gave Cynthia James a copy of the 2008 CRCT. The test
was clearly marked, "SECURE MATERIALS. MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED." James knew
that no one should have a copy of the 2008 CRCT so when Principal Barlow-Brown later said to
James, "I know Ms. Harris gave you some materials," James pretended to be confused. James
kept the copy of the CRCT and gave it to the GBI and to the Blue Ribbon Commission. We
have confirmed the test James had was a copy of the 2008 CRCT.
James recalled another occasion when Harris had a transparency of a page from the
CRCT on her classroom wall. Principal Barlow-Brown was walking out of the classroom as
James walked in, so Principal Barlow-Brown must have seen the transparency as well. James
100
heard Harris say to teacher Kassia Walker, "I wish Ms. [DePaula] Woods would get back
because I only know the reading" portion of the test.
On the makeup day for the CRCT, James saw that Harris' students were in teacher Nicole
Collier's classroom and at a different time Collier's students were in Harris' classroom. James
believed that Collier and Harris were taking turns watching each other's students while the other
altered test documents.
A student told James that teachers had given her answers to the CRCT, but did not
identify specific teachers.
Students were pulled out of the classroom to be tested separately. James attended a third
grade meeting at which teachers discussed which students to pull out of their classrooms and test
in a small group. These students were tested separately by Loretta Hairston, a retired teacher
who was brought in to help administer the test.
James identified two reasons why Principal Barlow-Brown must have known about the
cheating. First, after Harris gave James a copy of the test, Principal Barlow-Brown said to
James, "I know Ms. Harris gave you some materials." Second, Harris had a student with
learning disabilities who was about to be placed in PEC (special education); however, the student
scored so well on the CRCT the previous year that he could not qualify for special education.
Harris shared her concerns about the discrepancy between the child's ability and test scores with
administrator Evelyn Britton. Britton told Principal Barlow-Brown about Harris' concerns.
James told Cornelia Primous that something "not right" was going on with the tests and
that Primous should protect the tests. Primous then locked up the tests in her office.
James' contract with APS was not renewed after the 2008-2009 school year. She
believes that Principal Barlow-Brown terminated her in retaliation for not cheating and for
questioning the actions of the others.
2. Tameka King (Teacher)
Tameka King taught special education at Peyton Forest in 2009-2010 and believes
Principal Barlow-Brown cheated.
King heard about cheating when she started at the school in the fall of 2009. She heard
that the following teachers changed answers on the tests in the library after school and on the
weekends: Cornelia Primous, Stephens (King believes she is a retired teacher), Evelyn Britton,
Olivia Harris, and a paraprofessional.
The abilities of the children in King's class did not match the high scores they received
on the 2009 CRCT. King e-mailed Dr. Alexander and Delicia Goodman-Lee with her concerns.
King believes teachers cheated on the 2010 test as well. She heard children talking to
each other about how they had the answers to the test.
101
3. Bahji Vomer (Teacher)
Bahji Varner's first year at Peyton Forest was the 2009-2010 school year. Varner was
not at the school for the 2009 CRCT, but witnessed cheating in 2010.
Varner saw teachers cheat on the APS district-wide benchmark tests. She proctored
during this test and saw teachers point to certain questions and then identify the correct answer.
After completion, the tests were scanned and scored at the school. Enolar Callands would watch
the tests as they were scored. If the scores were not high enough, the teachers would review the
tests with the students. Then, the students with low scores were sent to Callands' or Bess Mae
Paschal' s classroom to retake the test.
On the Fifth Grade Writing Test, Paschal instructed students to write drafts, and bring
them to her to review and revise. Only after her revisions were the students allowed to write the
essay on the official paper.
Varner said the following teachers cheated on the benchmark tests and the Fifth Grade
Writing Test: fourth grade teachers Jamie Manning, Cernitha Battle, and Angela Campbell, and
fifth grade teachers Enolar Callands, Karen Patterson, Milo Morris, Travis Brown, and Bess Mae
Paschal. Varner stated that Callands was the ringleader.
Varner did not report the cheating to anyone because she believed everyone to whom she
should report knew of, and condoned, cheating.
4. Jessica Wackerman (Teacher)
In 2009, teacher Enolar Callands took approximately four students from Wackerman' s
class to test them because of behavior problems.
Wackerman believes that fellow teachers Cernitha Battle and Enolar Callands changed
answers for the fourth grade students. Principal Barlow-Brown reprimanded teacher Alisha
Weaver at a meeting because one of Weaver's students wrote "stomp the CRCT" in her test
booklet. Principal Barlow-Brown knew what the student wrote because Battle and Callands had
to go through all of the test booklets and answer sheets to "erase stray marks." The "erasing of
stray marks" in test booklets would not be necessary because the test booklets are not scanned.
When the 2009 CRCT results came back, Wackerman was shocked at how well her
students performed. She believes someone changed her students' tests.
5. Brenda Bickham (Teacher)
Brenda Bickham' s third and fifth grade students failed the benchmark tests, but did well
on the CRCT. When the 2009 CRCT results came out, Bickham told Principal Barlow-Brown
that her students were not on the level indicated by the CRCT scores. She thinks that the
administrators changed the tests and that Principal Barlow-Brown, Testing Coordinator Cornelia
Primous, Assistant Principal Jacquelyn Poindexter, and teacher Olivia Harris were involved.
Teacher Cynthia James told Bickham that she had a copy of the CRCT for the third grade
and that she got it from Harris.
102
6. Kassia Walker (Teacher)
Kassia Walker taught third grade at Peyton Forest in 2009. She heard that Harris had a
copy of the CRCT and transparencies of the test as well. Walker also heard that teachers were
asked to look at the CRCT booklet. Harris did not give Walker a copy of the test.
Walker saw that Collier's students would sometimes be in Harris' classroom with Harris'
students and vice versa, on several occasions during the CRCT testing days.
7. Ramona Rivers (Teacher)
Ramona Rivers taught at Peyton Forest until 2007. Rivers had no knowledge of cheating
in 2009 but recalled that Principal Barlow-Brown ridiculed Cernitha Battle for low test scores,
and that every subsequent year Battles' scores improved. Rivers testified that Dr. Beverly Hall
replaced former principal Cornelius Watts with Principal Barlow-Brown because of the low test
scores under Watts.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Karen Barlow-Brown (Principal)
Karen Barlow-Brown was the principal of Peyton Forest for seven years. She has no
reason to believe anyone cheated at Peyton Forest. No one ever reported to her that there might
be cheating on the CRCT and she has never heard rumors of cheating. She would not call
teachers together to "erase stray marks" on tests because that is against her own belief system
and personal integrity. She denied asking James if she received anything from Harris.
Principal Barlow-Brown did not offer any alternative explanation for Peyton Forest's
extremely high number of erasures.
2. Cornelia Primous (Testing Coordinator)
Cornelia Primous was the counselor and testing coordinator at Peyton Forest in 2009.
She denied knowledge of cheating.
She and Principal Barlow-Brown disagreed about where the tests should be sorted in
2009. Principal Barlow-Brown told Primous to sort them in the cafeteria but Primous argued
that they needed to be sorted in a more secure location. The tests were sorted in a conference
room and were stored in a room in the media center. She thinks that the only people with keys to
that room were Librarian Cynthia Thomas and Principal Barlow-Brown.
She heard that Harris had a copy of the CRCT in 2008 prior to the administration of the
2009 test. Primous believes Principal Barlow-Brown fired teacher Ramona Rivers because she
would not take a copy of the test.
Principal Barlow-Brown moved children who were "slower" to a separate room to be
tested by Loretta Hairston. This was a testing violation, but Primous did not report it because
she was intimidated by Principal Barlow-Brown and feared retribution.
103
3. Olivia Harris (Teacher)
Olivia Harris denied the allegations made by Cynthia James. Harris claimed that she
downloaded practice test materials from the Georgia Department of Education website and
provided the practice material to other teachers. GOSA compared the test allegedly given by
Harris to James and confirmed it is a copy of the 2008 CRCT and not practice material.
Harris had three subjects flagged in 2010 as well.
4. Jamie Manning (Teacher)
Jamie Manning denied knowledge of cheating on the CRCT.
5. Cernitha Battle (Teacher)
Cernitha Battle denied knowledge of cheating on the CRCT.
6. Angela Campbell (Teacher)
Angela Campbell denied knowledge of cheating on the CRCT.
7. Enolar Callands (Teacher)
Enolar Callands denied knowledge of cheating on the CRCT.
8. Karen Patterson (Teacher)
ICaren Patterson denied knowledge of cheating on the CRCT.
9. Milo Morris (Teacher)
Milo Morris denied knowledge of cheating on the CRCT.
10. Travis Brown (Teacher)
Travis Brown denied knowledge of cheating on the CRCT.
11. Bess Mae Paschal (Teacher)
Bess Mae Paschal denied knowledge of cheating on the CRCT.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude there was cheating at Peyton Forest on the CRCT and other tests. Olivia
Harris had a copy of the 2008 CRCT and used it to prepare students for the 2009 CRCT. She
also gave copies of the 2008 CRCT to other teachers. One teacher admitted she received a copy
of the 2008 test, and the evidence indicates other teachers received a copy as well. We also
conclude that teachers at Peyton Forest violated testing procedure because students who were not
documented as special needs were tested separately from their homeroom by Enolar Callands
and a retired teacher.
104
There is eyewitness testimony that Jamie Manning, Cernitha Battle, Angela Campbell,
Enolar Callands, Karen Patterson, Milo Morris, Travis Brown, and Bess Mae Paschal cheated on
the Fifth Grade Writing Test and APS benchmark tests in 2010. These teachers' extremely high
wrong-to-right erasures on the 2009 CRCT lead us to conclude they cheated on the CRCT as
well. We believe teachers were not truthful with investigators because they feared retaliation.
Finally, some students' high CRCT scores were not consistent with their actual abilities
and teachers shared their concerns about this with Principal Barlow-Brown. There was a
precipitous gain in CRCT scores in 2009 and a drop in 2010 (20 declines out of 21 subject
comparisons).
Principal Barlow-Brown knew of the cheating this school. She knew that Olivia Harris
had a copy of the 2008 CRCT. She should have known that teachers were cheating on the
benchmarks and writing tests. Furthermore, Principal Barlow-Brown failed to ensure the ethical
administration of and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. It is our conclusion from the statistical
data and the other evidence that Principal Barlow-Brown failed to properly monitor the 2009
CRCT and adequately supervise testing activities and security. This resulted in, and she is
responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009
CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
We also conclude there were rule violations in the administration of the 2009 CRCT and
that Testing Coordinator Cornelia Primous failed in her responsibility to provide a secure testing
environment.
105
EAST LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
145 4th Avenue SE Principal: Gwendolyn Benton SRT-3 Executive Director: Dr. Gloria Patterson
Atlanta, Georgia 30317 Testing Coordinator: Fran Standifer
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at East Lake Elementary in 2009 and in other years.
Thirty -five people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating at East Lake
is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms and witness testimony. Principal
Gwendolyn Benton and Testing Coordinator Fran Standifer erased and changed students'
answers on the 2009 CRCT. They also altered the results of the Fifth Grade Writing Test.
Principal Benton failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
42
0
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
21
0
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
9(8)
0
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
7.1
0
High Flagged Standard Deviation
14.2
0
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.4
0
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
MILLER
1 RD
4.497074103
MILLER
1 LA
12.82386133
MILLER
1 MA
9.186071087
SMITH
1 RD
14.17018511
SMITH
1 LA
12.987849
SMITH
1 MA
11.56563203
OLIVE
2 RD
4.639239175
OLIVE
2 LA
6.699333434
HADLEY
3 RD
11.43460607
HADLEY
3 LA
4.064295785
HADLEY
3 MA
3.976207527
JONES ALLIE
3 LA
4.907894118
JONES ALLIE
3 MA
6.70508625
STAHL
3 LA
3.367696838
STAHL
3 MA
4.159624824
ROGERS MARTIN
4 RD
6.774758244
ROGERS MARTIN
4 LA
3.791735331
WASHINGTON
4 RD
8.709784986
WASHINGTON
4 LA
3.752489229
WASHINGTON
4 MA
6.136764455
WALLS
5 MA
4.452757051
106
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that East Lake Elementary School
was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported to the Georgia
Department of Education.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 42% for the 2009 CRCT. With state
monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped significantly from 42%
to 0%.
Second, of the 21 flagged classrooms at East Lake Elementary School, 11 (52% of the
total) had standard deviations that exceeded five, and five classrooms exceeded ten standard
deviations. At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred
without adult intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard
deviations the probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations
from the state mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad
scale at East Lake Elementary School.
Third is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at East Lake, 70.5% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
42% of the total classrooms in the school.
Fourth, Principal Benton created an environment that encouraged cheating. She
threatened teachers with PDPs if CRCT scores did not improve. She told her teachers to "do
whatever we have to do even if it means breaking the rules" to make APS targets. She instilled
fear of reprisal into her teachers so they would not report cheating at East Lake.
Finally, Principal Benton and Testing Coordinator Fran Standifer instructed teachers to
arrange their students in a way that caused lower performing students to receive easier Fifth
Grade Writing Tests.
B. Narrative
Principal Benton pressured teachers at East Lake to "find a way" to improve CRCT
scores "even if it meant breaking the rules." She threatened teachers with PDPs if CRCT scores
did not improve. Teachers at East Lake did not voice concerns over testing irregularities and
cheating for fear of reprisal against them by Principal Benton.
They cheated in three ways. First, Principal Benton instructed teachers to erase stray
marks on their students' answer sheets, and expected teachers to fill in answers to questions the
students left blank, and erase an answer when the student bubbled in more than one answer
selection.
Second, they erased wrong answers. Principal Benton required teachers to provide her
with frequent updates on students' benchmark testing progress. Principal Benton kept posters
containing students' testing data in her office, so she could easily identify the students who were
107
struggling. During the administration of the CRCT, Principal Benton required teachers to provide
her with the names of students who failed the test - immediately after each section of the CRCT
was administered. The only way for teachers to know which students failed was to review the
tests right after the students completed them.
During the CRCT testing window, Principal Benton and Fran Standifer often met in
Benton's office where the CRCT materials were stored for extended periods of time with the
door closed. During the 2010 CRCT, however, when state monitors and security cameras were
in the building, both Benton and Standifer left the building early. In 2010 Principal Benton told
teachers that the newly-installed security cameras would make sure "nothing came back on her,"
referring to CRCT cheating.
Teachers described students whose skills and abilities did not correspond to their high
CRCT scores. Teachers also described students who fell asleep or refused to complete portions
of the CRCT, but met or exceeded expectations on the CRCT. One teacher testified that two of
her students asked her if she would give them the answers for the CRCT "like our teacher did
last year."
During the administration of the CRCT, a student complained to his teacher that his
answer sheet was placed in his test booklet in a different spot than where he left it the previous
day. The teacher examined the answer sheet and saw that it contained heavy erasures. As she
examined the answer sheet, Principal Benton entered her classroom and instructed the teacher to
put the answer sheet down. The next day Principal Benton transferred the teacher to
kindergarten.
Third, Principal Benton and Fran Standifer devised a scheme to allow the lower
performing students to receive the easiest questions for the Fifth Grade Writing Test. The tests
were supposed to be handed out at random. Principal Benton and Fran Standifer instructed
teachers to seat their students in a particular order and to hand out writing tests in a particular
order. By pre-arranging the students and the tests, Principal Benton and Fran Standifer
attempted to alter the results of the State writing test in 2009 and in other years.
Principal Benton interfered with and obstructed this investigation. She told teachers that
the GBI was "putting words in people's mouths." She threatened teachers that she would "sue
them out the ass," if any of them "slandered" her to the GBI. Teachers told GBI agents that they
would not have testified truthfully to us if Principal Benton was still in charge of East Lake, for
fear of retaliation.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
/. Claudia Abboud (Teacher)
After reviewing East Lake's wrong-to-right erasure data, Claudia Abboud believes
cheating occurred on the CRCT at East Lake in 2009 and in other years; however, she does not
think teachers cheated because teachers did not have time to erase students' answer sheets.
Abboud noted that although East Lake's students met 100% of their APS targets on the 2008
CRCT, the students' abilities did not match these scores. She heard that another teacher
108
witnessed Principal Benton's car parked at the school over the weekend when the 2009 CRCT
materials were in the building.
2. Morresia Withers (Media Specialist)
Morresia Withers remembers that Principal Benton and Standifer stayed late behind
closed doors during the CRCT testing period in 2009 and other years. After a security camera
was installed around Principal Benton's office for the 2010 testing window, however, Principal
Benton and Standifer did not stay late at the school during the CRCT testing window.
Withers proctored the 2009 CRCT writing test in Stephanie Walls' classroom. She said
that Principal Benton and Standifer instructed Withers and Walls to seat the students in a
particular order for the Fifth Grade Writing Test. Withers explained the writing test was
supposed to be handed out randomly, and the seating arrangement scheme ensured that the
lowest performing students received the easiest writing question. Withers and Walls ignored
Principal Benton and Standifer' s instruction, but did not report the attempted violation to APS's
testing hotline.
Withers said that APS had a "mafia atmosphere" and that employees feared retaliation if
they spoke up. Principal Benton threatened to place teachers on PDPs for low CRCT scores, and
stated: "We will do whatever it takes to make sure the students pass the test."
3. Raqketa Williams (Teacher)
On her first day at East Lake in 2009, Principal Benton told Raqketa Williams, "At East
Lake we do whatever we have to do even if it means breaking the rules," pointed to the prior
year's CRCT scores and said, "See the scores? East Lake makes its targets."
Williams recalls that Principal Benton referred to the new security cameras around her
office during the 2010 CRCT testing window, and stated, "nothing is coming back on me,"
Williams understood Benton meant the security cameras would not show Principal Benton
altering students' CRCT answer sheets.
Because of fear of reprisal by Principal Benton, Raqketa Williams would not have
testified truthfully to us if Principal Benton was still at East Lake.
4. Stephanie Walls (Teacher)
Principal Benton instructed Stephanie Walls to create a seating chart for her students to
be used during the 2010 Fifth Grade Writing Test. Principal Benton instructed Morresia Withers
to pass out the writing test to Walls' students in a particular order. Walls explained that by
passing the tests out in the order Principal Benton wanted, the lower performing students would
receive easier writing questions. Walls and Withers discussed Principal Benton's instruction and
decided to ignore it. They passed the tests out randomly.
Walls stated that another teacher, Rashida Davis, received similar instructions from
Standifer and discussed the matter with Principal Benton. Walls is unaware of the outcome of
that conversation.
109
5. VernaMcGhee (Teacher)
Principal Benton asked each teacher which students met, exceeded, and failed to meet
expectations after each daily session of the CRCT. Verna McGhee further testified that Principal
Benton instructed teachers to erase stray marks on the CRCT answer sheets, and "expected"
teachers to fill in answers for questions left blank, erase answers if the student bubbled in two or
more answer choices, and fill in partially-filled circles. Principal Benton instructed teachers to
never discuss the CRCT.
Another teacher, Viola Nears, told McGhee that the first and second grade teachers used
voice inflection to prompt their students during administration of the CRCT.
In 2008, McGhee saw Principal Benton's car parked at the school on a Saturday when the
CRCT materials were in the building. McGhee noted that Principal Benton's car was parked in
the back of the building and this was unusual because Principal Benton always parked in the
front of the building.
McGhee described a meeting between Principal Benton and teachers where Principal
Benton stated that the GBI "was putting words in people's mouths, and interrogating them."
Principal Benton further stated that her son was a lawyer, and that "if anyone slanders me I will
sue them out the ass." McGhee stated that she could only testify truthfully without fear of
reprisal because Principal Benton was no longer employed at the school.
Former testing coordinator at East Lake, Royce Love-Diagne, once told McGhee, "Dr.
Hall expects us to cheat "
6. Maria Johnson (Teacher)
During the 2004 CRCT, Maria Johnson saw a proctor prompt students to change answers.
She reported the violation to then-testing coordinator Royce Love-Diagne, but is unaware if any
action was taken. Two of Maria Johnson's students asked if she would give them the answers to
the 2010 CRCT like their teachers did the previous year. Johnson had a student who exceeded
on the CRCT one year and was placed on a PEC the next year for low performance.
Principal Benton threatened to place teachers on a PDP if their low CRCT scores did not
improve. Johnson believes Principal Benton changed answers on the 2009 CRCT because
teachers did not have access to the tests. Specifically, Johnson identified a Saturday when she
volunteered at a Hands On Atlanta event at East Lake. The CRCT materials were in the building
on that Saturday. All of the volunteers worked outside the school building except Principal
Benton and her daughter, a teacher in Gwinnett County, who stayed in the building.
7. Kori Smith (Instructional Coach)
Principal Benton required teachers to provide her with a list of students who did not do
well after each section of the CRCT.
Kori Smith recalled a student who failed every class but exceeded expectations on the
CRCT. She believes that based on the student's skills, his test score was not possible. Principal
110
Benton instructed Smith to change that student's classroom grades from failing to C's. Smith
refused to change the grades. She later reviewed his file and noticed that someone else had
changed his grades. Smith recognized the handwriting that made the changes as belonging to
Principal Benton's secretary.
During one CRCT test session, a student complained to Smith that his answer sheet was
in a different place in the test booklet than where he placed it the previous day. Smith examined
the answer sheet and noticed that it had heavy erasures. As she was examining the answer sheet,
Principal Benton entered her classroom. Principal Benton motioned for Kori Smith to put down
the answer sheet. Smith was transferred to a kindergarten class the next day.
8. Cheryl Jones-Allie (Teacher)
Cheryl Jones-Allie identified one student who could not read on a third grade level but
passed the CRCT. Jones-Allie did not believe that student was capable of passing the CRCT.
Another student fell asleep during the reading section of the CRCT for the first half hour of the
testing session, but passed that portion.
After reviewing her classroom's wrong-to-right erasure data, Jones-Allie stated that her
students did not have time to make all the erasures on their test sheets during the testing period.
Another teacher told Jones-Allie that she had seen an administrator's car at the school
building on a Sunday afternoon when the CRCT answer sheets were in the building.
9. Julie Rogers-Martin (Teacher)
Principal Benton kept charts and posters on her walls with the benchmark scores and
previous CRCT scores for students, so she was aware of which students would perform poorly
on the CRCT. Principal Benton threatened to place teachers on PDPs if their CRCT scores did
not improve, and singled out teachers with low CRCT scores at meetings.
Julie Rogers-Martin recalled that 100% of her students met expectations on the Social
Studies portion of the 2008 CRCT. She was surprised by this result because she knew that she
did not focus on Social Studies throughout the school year, but focused on the AYP subjects of
math, reading, and language arts.
Rogers-Martin had a student who could barely read in her class one year. She filled out
paperwork to place him on a PEC but to her knowledge he was never placed on a PEC. That
student failed the CRCT but was socially promoted to the third grade. Inexplicably, the student
exceeded expectations on his third grade CRCT. He was then placed on a PEC in fourth grade.
In 2009, a student told Rogers-Martin that his previous teachers gave him answers on the
CRCT. Rogers-Martin recalled two students who refused to complete sections of their 2009
CRCT. Both were removed from her classroom. Both passed the CRCT.
111
10. Shonda Fulton (Secretary)
Nobody is allowed to enter Principal Benton's office without first checking with Shonda
Fulton. If the office door is shut, Fulton always knocks and waits for a response from Principal
Benton before entering. If she receives no response, she will not enter the office. She recalls
leaving between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. during the weeks of CRCT testing, and that Principal
Benton and Fran Standifer were often still meeting in Principal Benton's office.
11. John Stahl (Special Education)
Principal Benton required teachers to provide lists of students who they thought would
not pass the CRCT. Principal Benton often told teachers to "find a way" for these students to
pass the CRCT. She instructed teachers to "assign quotas, figure it out, and do what you gotta
do," for students to pass the CRCT. John Stahl also heard that other teachers used voice
inflection to prompt their students on the CRCT at East Lake.
12. John Young (Teacher)
Many of John Young's students' skills and abilities did not match their prior CRCT
scores. He thinks that cheating happened at East Lake on the CRCT in 2009 and in other years,
but stated that teachers could not cheat because they did not have time to erase and change
students' answer sheets.
Young recalled one year at East Lake a "clean up the school" event was planned for the
weekend when the CRCT materials would be in the school. A storm was predicted for that
weekend, and many people asked Principal Benton to reschedule the event for a different
weekend. Principal Benton insisted the event be held when the CRCT materials were in the
building. John Young and other teachers at East Lake think Principal Benton changed answers
on the CRCT over that weekend.
13. Rashida Davis (Teacher)
Many of Rashida Davis' students' skills did not match their previous CRCT scores. She
recalls that in prior years, Fran Standifer and Principal Benton always stayed at the school late
during the CRCT testing window. During the 2010 year, however, both Principal Benton and
Standifer left early during the Fifth Grade Writing Test.
One year Standifer and Principal Benton instructed Davis to prepare a seating chart for
her students to sit in during the Fifth Grade Writing Test. She prepared a seating chart based on
her knowledge of students' relationships to one another to minimize disruption during the test.
Principal Benton and Standifer revised the seating chart heavily, and provided Davis with
specific instructions as to how to pass out the Fifth Grade Writing Test. Davis believes that the
instructions for passing out the Fifth Grade Writing Test were to make certain that lower
performing students received easier Fifth Grade Writing Tests.
112
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Fran Standifer (Testing Coordinator)
Testing Coordinator Fran Standifer described Principal Benton as overbearing. Standifer
was forbidden to count CRCT materials or place those materials in bins without Principal Benton
present. Standifer did not have a key to Principal Benton's office where the CRCT materials
were stored.
Standifer purchased pencils and erasers for distribution at East Lake during the CRCT.
When she collected the erasers they were extremely worn. Fran Standifer denies any knowledge
of cheating.
2. Royce Love-Diagne (Former Testing Coordinator)
Royce Love-Diagne recalled Principal Benton often stating "teachers need to get their
students to pass the CRCT by any means necessary." She denied ever instructing teachers to
cheat on the CRCT.
3. Gwendolyn Benton (Principal)
Principal Benton denied any knowledge of cheating on the CRCT at East Lake. She
opined that all erasing done on the CRCT in 2009 was done by the students. She stated that for
the fourth grade reading portion of the CRCT, East Lake's scores only dropped one percentage
point between 2009 and 2010. Since no classes were flagged in 2010 for having high wrong-to-
right erasures, and the scores in one section for one grade did not drop, Principal Benton believes
that proves there was no cheating at East Lake in 2009.
Principal Benton denied telling a new teacher, "At East Lake we do whatever we have to
do even if it means breaking the rules." She denied that she instructed Kori Smith to put down a
student answer sheet, as Kori Smith described, and did not transfer her to kindergarten in
retaliation.
E. Other Evidence
On April 13, 2010, anonymous staff members at East Lake Elementary sent a letter to
SRT-3 Executive Director Robin Hall detailing the oppressive environment created by Principal
Benton, and describing cheating and testing violations at East Lake. A copy of that letter is
included as Attachment A. Robin Hall contacted Kathy Augustine and described the letter.
Augustine told Robin Hall that APS previously investigated the matter, and instructed her to take
no action. A copy of Robin Hall's letter to Millicent Few describing Augustine's instructions is
included as Attachment B.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Principal Benton and Fran Standifer erased and changed student answer
sheets on the 2009 CRCT and in other years. We further conclude that Principal Benton and
113
Fran Standifer altered the results of the Fifth Grade Writing Test in 2009 and other years by
manipulating the distribution of the writing test.
It is also our conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation, that Principal Benton failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT and adequately
supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for,
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
114
11/13/2010 12:19 404 802 3894
SRT 3
#1383 P. OOt/001
1i-J9-lOP?2:47 RCVD
RECEIVED
(:'■' '
m 1 i fci;o
EXECUTiVE-DlRECTOS'S OFFICE
yci-fli of cnfji Tr,'" 3
■To;Dr:RobynHaIl
From: East Lake's Staff (present and former)
Date: March 3, 2010
Welcome to SRT3. . We at East Lake have decided to tell the truth concerning the
Erasure Analysis. It is not our intent to embarrass the Atlanta School Board or Dr.
Beverly Hall. We know as well as the powers to be that there is validity to these
findings, no one would ever tell a student to cross out on their answer sheet and then
erase. They are in&iructed to use all of their testing strategies within the booklet. We
can't speak for any other school but we can certainly state facts about East Lake
Elementary. We are losing about half of our staff because the system did not do anything
to Mrs. Benton, when she committed FORGERY. She was given a slap on the wrist and
told not to do it again. It was stated that if it became public knowledge that if would
affect not only her but others as well. Where is your INTERGRITY? The system
allowed the BEAST to roam freely and she has destroyed everything in her path. One
can only assume that Dr. Hall (superintendent) will allow anyone to stay as long as they
make her look good, regardless of what they do or say. We have or had to deal with her
on a daily basics and it is or was not pleasant. Everyone (parents, teachers, ILS's,
students) told you about her but you simply ignored it. You all started the fire so we are
going to put it out! How DARE you have some one stand before u&and say that she is
for the children. She like the rest is only tor HERSELF, and in the process the staff has
or had to work under someone that we don't or didn't RESPECT or TRUST. We are
only extending Atlanta this courtesy, because none has ever been extended to us. This
information will be passed on to the Governor's office as well as the press. We have
agreed to take Polygraphs because she will deny everything. Here are some of the CRCT
testing irregularities that took place at East Lake. We strongly suggest that you send her
to another school so that everyone will stay. Trust us; they ARE leaving or DID leave
because of her. People are trying to find jobs not lose them. The situation here is that
BAD!
• Threats if your scores showed where the children actually were and not where she
wanted them to be. (making your targets)
v Intimidation if you ever disagree or disagreed with her. (The Miller and Love-
Juan cases)
• Questions: Such as haw many of your students are testing on level three during
the actual testing period? (asked by Mis. Benton)
• Moving teachers from upper grades to lower grades if their students didn't make
the targets or vice-versa.
• A War Room where all students had to be listed under each level by the teachers.
Therefore, making it easier (for her) to erase answers' from wrong to right on
students listed under levels two and three without suspicion,
• Teachers being allowed to see a copy of the test during make-up testing.
• Coming on the weekend parking her car behind the building. The students' tests
and answer sheets are locked in a room in her office.
CM
O
O
Q
i
<0
<
115
12/05/2010 13:40 404 802 3B94
SRT 3
#1431 P. 002/003
November 22, 2010
TO:
MiMcentFew, Chief Human Resources Officer
Robin C. Hall, DA H.
FROM:
Executive Director, SRT 3
Re:
East Lake Letter Received April 13, 2010
On April 13, 2010, 1 received a letter regarding concerns at East Lake to include actions
by the principal and climate at the school that may have resulted in unethical testing
practices. I then contacted my immediate supervisor, Or. Kathy Augustine, to inform
her of this letter, She asked who the letter was fiom and I indicated that it stated from
former and current staff of East Lake, Dr, Augustine replied that she had received
correspondence about East Lake from the same sender (former and current staff of East
Lake) and that all complaints were investigated At that time, I was not advised to take
any further action. Therefore, I gave the letter to Sharon Curtis to file.
If additional clarification is needed, please do not hesitate to let me know,
"I've (fsiwdifat psogk wi£fot$et wfat y<m said, wifljfeigrf wfatyim M fat iMirnvfinurt totvytm ns<& tkmfitt'
-Maytjtttgiloii
RCH:sac
116
COOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
211 Memorial Drive SE Principal: LaPaul Shelton SRT-3 Executive Director: Dr. Gloria Patterson
Atlanta, GA 303 12-202 1 Testing Coordinator: Carla Ross
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Cook Elementary in 2009 and in previous years.
Twenty-one people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Two teachers
confessed to cheating. Cheating is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms,
confessions, and witness testimony. Principal LaPaul Shelton provided low performing students
with accommodations which were not allowed. Principal Shelton knew of cheating by teachers.
He confirmed at least one eyewitness report of cheating on the CRCT, but took no action against
the teacher. Principal LaPaul Shelton failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
201)9
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
40.7
5
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
22
3
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
10(8)
3(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
7.4
3.2
Fhgh Flagged Standard Deviation
23.6
3.3
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.1
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
ANDERSON
3 LA
4.376594004
NELSON LYNCH
3 LA
5.07848474
NELSON LYNCH
3 MA
4.551656176
VAN WALKER
3 RD
5.801215391
VAN WALKER
3 LA
3.6491074
VAN WALKER
3 MA
3.339858491
WILLIAMS
3 RD
4.666014429
WILLIAMS
3 LA
5.713336681
WILLIAMS
3 MA
3.379414277
REIMNITZ
4 RD
6.630912183
REIMNITZ
4 MA
3.88169777
ROBERTSON
4 RD
5.200395825
ROBERTSON
4 LA
3.837983558
ROBERTSON
4 MA
3.065196438
WATKIS
4 RD
4.791002758
OFOSUHENE
5 RD
14.4839867
OFOSUHENE
5 LA
10.99026074
OFOSUHENE
5 MA
17.75189629
V AS SAN
5 LA
3.917899606
V AS SAN
5 MA
11.5343103
WEEMS
5 RD
13.1011272
WEEMS
5 MA
23.63884013
117
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Cook Elementary School was
not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported to the Georgia
Department of Education.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 40.7% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only 23 schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT
only nine schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Cook Elementary School.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
from 40.7% to 5%.
Fourth, of the 22 flagged classrooms at Cook Elementary School, 11 (50% of the total)
had standard deviations that exceeded five, and six classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations.
At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at this
school.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures, 68% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 40.7% of the
total classrooms in the school.
Sixth, testing protocols were not followed at Cook. Principal Shelton, Cheryl Dumas,
and Terri Smith pulled low performing students from their regular classrooms and administered
the CRCT to them separately in a room with the door closed and windows covered. Many of
these students' answer sheets have high wrong-to-right erasures.
Finally, two teachers confessed to cheating at Cook. Principal Shelton knew cheating
occurred, but instead of reporting it, he erased and changed the previously changed answers.
B. Narrative
In 2008 and 2009, cheating occurred at Cook Elementary through various means. Two
teachers, Deborah Weems and Kwabena Ofusuhene, confessed to erasing and changing student
answers in the parent conference room while they were supposed to be erasing stray marks.
Weems changed answers for her own class, as well as other teachers' classes. Weems used a "go
by" test from a student who she knew would "exceed" on the test. Weems used a transparency
created for one of the test forms. Weems and Ofusuhene also prompted students and directed
them to the right answers during administration of the test, causing students to erase and change
their own answers.
118
Teachers cheated because they feared for their jobs if they failed to make targets or AYP.
Principal Shelton constantly reminded teachers that if they could not make AYP, they should not
be in the profession and threatened teachers with PDPs for failure to meet targets. He also
publicly humiliated and demeaned teachers in faculty meetings if their students performed
poorly.
Principal Shelton should have been on notice of potential cheating when numerous
teachers complained that their students' performance in class and on diagnostic tests did not
match their performance on the CRCT the prior year. Principal Shelton knew that teachers at
Cook were cheating and covered it up. A teacher reported to Shelton that she witnessed another
teacher change one of her student's answers, and suspected others were changed as well.
Shelton retrieved the students' tests and confirmed the answers had been changed, so he changed
the students' new, correct answers back to the original wrong answer. Despite his assurance that
he would handle the situation, Principal Shelton never addressed the accused teacher, filed an
OIR report or took other action.
Principal Shelton also violated testing protocols by pulling students out of class and
testing them in the afternoon in small groups outside of the normal testing period. The students,
tested in a room with the window covered and door closed, were typically low performers but
were not entitled to special accommodations. Principal Shelton asked teachers to provide him
with a list of students in their class who were low performers or behavior problems. He also
allowed some students to "re-take" sections of the CRCT if, according to their teacher, they were
distracted or did not perform well during the morning testing session.
A review of the student data reveals that several students who Shelton pulled out for
small group testing had very high wrong-to-right erasures. Moreover, several flagged teachers
testified that the erasure analysis indicated that they tested more students than they actually did
because Principal Shelton pulled students from these teachers' classes and tested them
elsewhere.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Deborah Weems (Teacher)
In 2008 and 2009, Deborah Weems cheated on the CRCT by erasing and changing
student answers and by giving students answers during testing. Weems admitted to cheating and
said she felt pressured to cheat by Principal Shelton. Principal Shelton told teachers that if they
could not make AYP, then they needed to look for another profession. Shelton never told
Weems to cheat, but it was understood that it needed to be done. Principals could be put on
PDPs if the school failed to perform. The principal would then put teachers on the "chopping
block" and APS would "blacklist" them. Shelton felt it was very important to be "on the floor"
and get recognized during the annual Convocation ceremony.
During testing, Weems improperly assisted her students. She told her students in
advance that if she walked by them and told them they needed to check their answer or if she
called out that a certain question needed to be reviewed again, that was a signal that they had the
119
answer wrong. Then Weems would walk back to the student and look at the question again. If
she walked away, that meant the student had the answer correct.
Teachers erased stray marks from the tests before turning them in. While "erasing stray
marks," Weems changed students' answers for the tests on her grade level, as well as others. In
2009, Weems changed answers with Kwabena Ofusuhene, a fellow fifth grade teacher. When
changing answers, Weems used a "go-by" or key. In 2008, the former media specialist, Tiffonia
Lamar-Sanders, gave her answers for the tests. Weems suspected they may have come from
tests of students who were late or absent and were tested separately. Weems and Ofusuhene
looked over the tests at the end of each test day so they would not get "backlogged" while they
made the changes.
Weems does not believe that Testing Coordinator Carla Ross knew about the cheating.
Ross left the parent room where the teachers were erasing stray marks so the teachers could stay
in the room with the tests as long as they wanted. In 2009, Ofusuhene distracted Ross so that
Weems could change answers on the tests.
In 2009, Daniela Vassan was present in the room while Weems and Ofusuhene changed
answers. Vassan told Weems she was tempted to fill in one of her student's answers, but did not
do it. Weems took the test from Vassan and filled in the answer.
She thinks that Jacinta Williams and Amanda Lynch may also have changed student
answers. She saw them erasing.
Weems denied that she was ever approached by Principal Shelton regarding any
allegations of cheating made against her.
2. Kwabena Ofusuhene (Teacher)
Kwabena Ofusuhene admitted that while "erasing stray marks" in the parent center, he
erased and changed student answers. Weems provided him with the answers to the test for the
math section and he used it to "fix answers." Weems knew which of her students would exceed
on the test and used one of their answer sheets as a guideline. He denied changing answers on
other teachers' papers.
He heard that the third grade teachers "fixed" answers.
3. Ti ffonia Lamar-Sanders (Former Media Specialist)
During the four or five years she was at Cook, Principal Shelton pulled students for small
group testing. These students were typically behavioral problems or had "test anxiety."
4. Jacinta Williams (Teacher)
Jacinta Williams saw Weems take a sheet from Daniela Vassan and fill in a student
answer. In 2009, Weems and Ofusuhene stayed in the parent conference room much longer than
other teachers to erase stray marks. Williams denied changing any answers.
120
Principal Shelton came to Williams at the end of each test day and inquired how she
thought her students performed. She informed Shelton which students did not complete, or who
were distracted, during the test. Principal Shelton, Tiffonia Lamar-Sanders and Cheryl Dumas
pulled those students out of class later that day and gave them additional time to complete the
test. None of those students had an Individualized Education Plan.
Prior to testing, Williams' team created a list of lower achieving students and provided it
to Principal Shelton. Shelton then had these students tested in small groups. These students did
not have an Individualized Education Plan either.
5. Amanda Lynch (Teacher)
During the 2009 CRCT, Daniela Vassan told Amanda Lynch that she suspected Weems
had changed Vassan' s students' test answers. Lynch told Vassan to report it to Shelton. Vassan
later told Lynch she reported it to Principal Shelton and he changed the answers back to the
original answers.
Lynch was surprised by one student's high test scores because he did not know all of his
letter sounds. He passed the reading portion of the test.
Principal Shelton pulled students from Lynch' s class for small group testing. Lynch
selected which students would most benefit from this environment. Typically, those were
students who had behavior problems. On one occasion, Shelton pulled a student from her class
after the testing period was over and allowed the girl to retake the test. He explained to Lynch
that this student did not perform well, so he was going to re-administer a section of the test to
her. Lynch denied changing any answers.
6. Cheryl Dumas (Teacher)
During the 2009 CRCT, Cheryl Dumas administered the test to a small group of eight to
ten fourth grade girls. Teachers selected which students should be tested away from their peers.
No monitor was present during these sessions.
7. Car la Brice Ross (Testing Coordinator)
Carla Ross denied any knowledge of cheating. She became visibly upset when
confronted with the statistical results of the wrong-to-right erasure analysis. Ross said that
teachers for third, fourth and fifth grades were not supposed to clean up stray marks since the
students were required to do so before turning in the tests.
8. Daniela Vassan (Teacher)
The 2008-2009 school year was Daniela Vassan' s first year in APS. During the 2009
CRCT, Vassan witnessed cheating. During the testing week, Vassan returned her tests to the
parent center at the end of the day. She noticed that a student left a question blank on the
section. Weems looked up the problem in the test booklet, solved it, and told Vassan the correct
answer to bubble in. Vassan refused, so Weems filled in the answer on the student's answer
121
sheet herself. Vassan retrieved the answer sheet from Weems and erased the answer Weems
improperly marked. She then turned in her tests and left the parent center.
Two hours later, Weems and Osufuhane were still in the parent center. Vassan went to
the testing coordinator and asked to verify her test booklet count. When she pulled the student's
answer sheet that Weems had bubbled in, Vassan noticed it had been changed again. She also
noticed eraser marks on other students' tests as well, and the tests were out of alphabetical order
as she had left them.
Vassan reported the situation to Principal Shelton. Shelton pulled the test documents of
the students whose answers Vassan believed had been changed. Shelton then erased those
students' new, correct answers and changed them back to the original wrong answer. Vassan did
not report Shelton' s actions to anyone at that time, as she did not feel comfortable reporting him
to the SRT Executive Director. However, in December 2010, she reported the incident to her
new Principal, Sharon Briscoe, who took over for Shelton when APS promoted him to Best
Academy. Briscoe filed an OIR report.
At the end of each test day, Principal Shelton asked Vassan how her students performed
or inquired whether she had any that were inattentive or sleepy. Shelton later pulled those
students from class. Shelton also pulled a group of fourth grade boys for testing in a small
group. Those students did not have an IEP.
9. Tawanna Robertson (Teacher)
Tawanna Robertson believed that her fourth graders' prior test scores (from third grade)
did not accurately reflect their abilities. Robertson expressed her concerns to Principal Shelton.
Principal Shelton advised her to teach the students and get them to the level where they should
be rather than harp on what they did not know.
Robertson reviewed the erasure analysis data for her class. She could not provide any
explanation for the high erasures, but she was certain that her students did not erase that many
answers in her classroom. Robertson also indicated that the erasure analysis did not accurately
reflect the number of students in her class. She administered the test to 15 students, but the
erasure analysis showed that she tested 20. In 2009, Principal Shelton called several students out
of her class for "small group testing" with himself or Cheryl Dumas.
10. Lesma Watkis (Teacher)
Lesma Watkis taught at Cook from 2001 until 2010. During the 2009 CRCT, Principal
Shelton pulled seven or eight students out of her class for "behavioral issues" and tested them in
small groups.
Shelton also tested certain third and fifth graders in small groups. This "small group
testing" occurred in the afternoon, after the normal testing period ended, in a classroom with the
door closed and the window covered with paper.
In addition to pulling "behavioral students," Terri Smith, a substitute teacher who assisted
with the CRCT, asked Watkis for a student who performed well in math to be pulled out at the
122
same time. Watkis only administered the 2009 CRCT to ten or eleven students, but the erasure
analysis flagged a classroom of 20 students.
Watkis believed that cheating occurred on the CRCT because some students who passed
the CRCT were not functioning on their grade level and failed in class. These students
performed poorly on diagnostic tests (benchmark tests), but performed well in reading and math
on the CRCT. Osmond, Dye, Reimnitz and Robertson expressed their concern about this
inconsistency to Watkis as well. Watkis told her concerns to Principal Shelton, explaining that
her students especially struggled with reading. The very same students that Watkis informed
Shelton were struggling in reading ended up being the students Shelton pulled for small group
testing. Watkis is only flagged in one class - reading.
Principal Shelton ridiculed teachers whose students did not perform well on the CRCT.
When CRCT scores came out, Shelton publicly singled out teachers in a meeting and told them
they did not need to be at Cook if their students did not perform better. Teachers could be placed
on a PDP or lose their jobs for poor student performance.
Just prior to testing, Principal Shelton held a meeting in the auditorium and reiterated that
the teachers were expected to do "everything possible" to ensure the students passed. Some
teachers expressed concern to Watkis that they felt that Shelton wanted them to cheat in order for
the students to pass.
//. Nancy Milledge (Teacher at Best Academy)
Nancy Milledge was a teacher at Best Academy during 2009-2010 school years where
LaPaul Shelton is currently the Principal. Milledge reported that during the 2009-2010 CRCT,
Principal Shelton pulled students for small group testing under the guise of "behavioral issues."
Milledge reported this as a testing problem during the 2009-2010 year because she believed it
was disruptive when Principal Shelton came into the classroom to pull out students during
testing. She knew those students were tested elsewhere.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. LaPaul Shelton (Principal)
Shelton became Principal at Cook in the 2004-2005 school year. He confirmed that he
put pressure on the teachers to meet APS targets.
Shelton denied any knowledge of, or participation in, cheating or violations reported to
him with regard to the CRCT. He claimed he could not recall Daniela Vassan coming to him
with concerns that her students' test answers had been changed by Deborah Weems. He could
not recall erasing those students' answers and changing them back to the original answers as
marked in the students' test booklets. He also did not recall pulling a student from Amanda
Lynch' s class to be re-tested.
Principal Shelton stated that he tested students in small groups who came to school late or
were absent during testing. He initially denied pulling students who were "behavioral
problems," but ultimately admitted that he tested some of these students in small groups. He
123
chose these students based upon data, performance and the recommendation of the teacher.
Shelton admitted to asking teachers for a list of students who were not performing well, but
explained that he used that list to determine which students needed individual attention
throughout the year.
Shelton also admitted that teachers reported to him that some students were not
performing in class at the same high level they performed on the CRCT, but he explained it was
due to a "high mobility rate" at Cook.
When confronted with the erasure analysis data, he reluctantly admitted that cheating was
one explanation.
E. Other Evidence
• Tn 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009, Cook met AYP
• In 2010, after Principal Shelton was transferred to Best Academy, Cook
did not meet AYP.
• In 2010, after Principal Shelton was transferred to Best Academy, the
classes flagged at Cook for wrong-to-right erasures dropped dramatically
from 40.7% to 5%.
• At Best Academy, where APS transferred Shelton, the percent of classes
flagged increased from 3.9% in 2009 to 19.4% in 2010, with Shelton as
Principal. Best was the only school in the district that increased its
percentage of classes flagged in 2010 by double digits.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Principal Shelton cheated by pulling students for small group testing
who were not entitled to accommodations. Cheryl Dumas and Terri Smith assisted Principal
Shelton in his cheating scheme. Deborah Weems and Kwabena Osufuhane cheated on the
CRCT by erasing and changing student answers for their class as well as other classes. Principal
Shelton knew Weems erased and changed answers but took no action. The cheating occurred in
2008 and 2009.
Although no direct evidence exists that Dr. Carla Ross, the testing coordinator, knew of
or condoned cheating, we conclude that Dr. Ross failed to follow testing protocols, and thereby
allowed cheating to occur.
Tt is our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation, that Principal Shelton failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately
supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and he is responsible for,
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
124
WOODSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1605 Donald Lee Hollowell Pkwy. NE Principal: Dr. Viola Blackshear SRT-4 Executive Director: TamaraCotman
Atlanta, GA 30318 Testing Coordinator: Ketchia Smith
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Woodson Elementary in 2009. Fifty -five people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. Two teachers confessed to cheating. Cheating
at Woodson is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, confessions, witness
testimony, and Principal Viola Blackshear' s refusal to answer our questions. Principal Viola
Blackshear answered our questions during her first interview, but during her second interview,
she refused to answer questions and instead asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination. Principal Viola Blackshear failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
63.3
15.7
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
38
10
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
16(13)
4(3)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from Stale Norm
7.9
6.6
Fhgh Flagged Standard Deviation
15.8
10.8
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.4
3.2
125
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
GAMBLE
1 MA
4.274325147
LADIPO
1 RD
6.996825212
LADIPO
1 LA
9.802024308
LADIPO
1 MA
5.006408649
PICKETT
1 RD
7.614992557
PICKETT
1 LA
15.73260912
PICKETT
1 MA
13.41230842
SMITH
1 LA
4.132890062
SMITH
1 MA
4.547985923
DANIELS
2 RD
6.398818908
DANIELS
2 LA
3.999849742
DANIELS
2 MA
4.811222851
KING
2 RD
3.866378599
LEE DAVIS
2 MA
4.948431478
KIRKLAND
3RD
11.40088789
KIRKLAND
3 LA
8.725414963
STARKS
3 RD
5.867326539
STARKS
3 LA
5.329997169
STARKS
3 MA
6.674076464
WOODSON
3 RD
12.82810116
WOODSON
3 LA
9.748608194
WOODSON
3 MA
12.82614325
BALTGH
4 RD
6.73483161
BAUGH
4 LA
4.886074383
BAUGH
4 MA
5.760674426
COLEMAN
4 LA
4.603220731
COLEMAN
4 MA
4.170944435
STROZIER
4 RD
15.55542851
STROZIER
4 LA
15.83102627
STROZIER
4 MA
10.45287493
JOHNSON
5 RD
10.58464209
JOHNSON
5 LA
4.995338884
JOHNSON
5 MA
15.43702794
MOSS
5 RD
3.393715479
MOSS
5 LA
8.948834018
MOSS
5 MA
6.585089103
WARTHEN
5 RD
8.999403937
WARTIIEN
5 LA
6.008572654
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several significant facts which point to the conclusion that Woodson
Elementary School was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately
reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 63.3% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only 13 schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only two had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Woodson Elementary School.
126
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
significantly from 63.3% to 15.7%.
Fourth, of the 38 flagged classrooms at Woodson, 26 (68% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and ten classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations, the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Woodson.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Woodson, 87.8% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
63.3%) of the total classrooms in the school.
Last, two teachers admitted to prompting students to erase and change answers during the
administration of the 2009 CRCT. Testing Coordinator Dixon instructed teachers to seat
students strategically so students could copy one another's work on the CRCT. Principal
Blackshear refused to answer questions about cheating at Woodson and asserted her Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent in response to every question. A copy of the questions
Principal Blackshear refused to answer is included as Attachment A.
B. Narrative
Principal Viola Blackshear is the principal at Woodson. Prior to the 2009 CRCT,
Woodson made AYP, but failed to meet targets. As a result, Dr. Blackshear was on a PDP at the
time of the 2009 CRCT.
In 2009, teachers cheated on the CRCT at Woodson by using non-verbal signals to assist
students, or strategically seated students so that they could cheat off of each other. One teacher
cheated at the suggestion of Instructional Liaison Specialist Debra Dixon. Dixon, as well as
Testing Coordinator Ketchia Smith and Principal Viola Blackshear, denied knowledge of or
participation in cheating.
No one at Woodson confessed to erasing or changing answers, but two teachers
confessed to cheating in other ways. However, when Principal Blackshear was interviewed, she
asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to every question,
including specific questions about whether she erased and changed answer documents. It is
undisputed that Dr. Blackshear had twenty-four hour access to the tests and habitually stayed at
the school after hours.
Throughout the school year and in the weeks leading up to the CRCT, Principal
Blackshear and Dixon tracked how the teachers expected each student to perform on the CRCT -
meets, exceeds, or not meets. Teachers used these "projection sheets" to determine where to
focus instruction for each student. Administrators used these "projection sheets" to determine if
the school would make AYP or targets. The erasure analysis data reveals a correlation in some
flagged classes between students on a teacher's "not meets" list and the students with the highest
number of wrong-to-right erasures.
127
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Deloris Pickett (Teacher)
Del oris Pickett worked in APS for 41 years and retired after the 2008-2009 school year.
Initially, Pickett denied doing anything to contribute to the high volume of erasures on her
students' test documents, but ultimately admitted that she may have frowned or looked at
students with displeasure when they missed questions. Pickett believed her actions likely caused
the students to erase and change their answers.
2. Ashlyn Strozier (Teacher)
Ashlyn Strozier admitted to cheating on the 2009 CRCT by seating students so that
students with the same test form could cheat off of each other's test. Debra Dixon suggested that
the teachers strategize and seat the students so that they could cheat off of one another's paper.
Strozier also admitted to prompting students by giving them a certain look when she saw them
missing questions. Strozier knew that Celesia Baugh also seated her students strategically
because they discussed it.
To assist the teachers in reaching targets and AYP, the teachers were required to prepare
projection sheets that reflect which students the teacher expected would meet, exceed or not meet
expectations on the CRCT. The teachers prepared this data several times a year. The most
recent set of "projections" would be turned over to the administrators approximately six weeks
before the CRCT. The school administrators also used these projections to determine if the
school would make AYP and targets.
The 2008-2009 school year was Strozier' s first year at Woodson, but she quickly noticed
that her students' performance in class did not match their passing CRCT scores from the prior
year. Strozier believed her students' scores had been inflated. Two particular students exceeded
in reading and language arts on the CRCT in the third grade, but when Strozier taught them in
fourth grade, she had to tutor them because they could not read. Strozier had several students
who passed certain subjects on the CRCT that should not have. She especially questioned one
student's scores in reading and language arts when the student could not read.
In 2010, Strozier informed Principal Blackshear that her students' previous CRCT scores
had been inflated because there was no way the students in her class achieved the test results
reflected from the previous year. Principal Blackshear told her she did not know what happened.
When the news broke about the 2009 CRCT erasure analysis, Principal Blackshear held a
meeting with the teachers to "calm them down". During that meeting, Principal Blackshear
warned teachers to be careful what they said to people outside of the school. Principal
Blackshear reminded the teachers that the tests were kept in a secure area in her office, which
was a vault, and that she knew, and the teachers knew, that she did not touch any of the tests.
She also reminded the teachers that she instructed them during the week of testing to leave the
school as soon as school ended, and that they were not allowed to report to the school on
weekends during the testing window. Principal Blackshear stressed the importance of knowing
the testing rules and reminded the teachers of the process of elimination testing strategies used at
128
Woodson. Strozier interpreted the meeting by Blackshear as an opportunity for Blackshear to
prepare the teachers for any upcoming interviews.
Principal Blackshear is now on a PDP for having low test scores for a third year in a row.
3. Jeannie Collins (Front Office Staff)
Only Principal Blackshear, Ms. Crawford (secretary), Testing Coordinator Ketchia
Smith, Brandon Green (paraprofessional) and Collins have alarm codes to the building.
4. Edith Ladipo (Teacher)
Edith Ladipo provided a list of students to ILS Dixon that delineated which students she
believed would fail the CRCT. Ladipo recalled being shocked that one of her students passed.
On the morning of the day Ladipo was subpoenaed for an interview by the GBI, Principal
Blackshear provided Ladipo with a list of her students from the 2008-2009 school year. This
document reflected how her students had performed on the CRCT. Ladipo confirmed that
Principal Blackshear was aware that Ladipo was to be interviewed the same day.
5. Brandon Green (Paraprofessional)
Brandon Green assisted with after school programs and Saturday school. During the
CRCT, he was a hallway monitor. Due to his weekend responsibilities, he had 24 hour key card
access. During the CRCT, Principal Blackshear told him not to come to the school on weekends
or let anyone else into the school.
Green typically reported to work between 6:30 a.m. and 6:45 a.m. Jeannie Collins,
Principal Blackshear and Ketchia Smith also arrive around 6:30 a.m. Debra Dixon would arrive
around 7:30 a.m.
Principal Blackshear often stayed late in the evening to work, but Green did not recall if
he saw anyone staying late during the 2009 testing window.
6. Ketchia Smith (Testing Coordinator)
Ketchia Smith does not believe any cheating occurred at Woodson. Smith has worked
with Principal Blackshear for five or six years and has been the testing coordinator since 2002.
After the reports came out alleging cheating in APS, Principal Blackshear held a meeting with
the staff. Smith believed the purpose of the meeting was to encourage teachers not to alarm the
students. Smith does not recall Principal Blackshear reminding the teachers that the tests were
kept in a vault, that she made them leave at the end of each day, that she did not allow anyone at
the school on weekends during testing, that Principal Blackshear did not handle the tests herself,
or that teachers should refresh their memory on testing procedures. Smith confirmed that
Principal Blackshear talked about testing strategies during that meeting.
129
Smith was not aware that Principal Blackshear met with teachers and provided them with
students' CRCT data prior to the teachers appearing for our interviews. Smith said it would be
unusual for Blackshear to provide this information.
During the 2009 CRCT, teachers picked up their test at 7:45 a.m. Smith conceded this
early pickup meant that the teachers had the tests in their possession an hour and fifteen minutes
before testing began, but Smith denied suggesting the teachers do anything unethical with the
tests. The teachers were not allowed to erase stray marks without being monitored. Smith stored
the test documents in Principal Blackshear' s conference room overnight. Smith and Principal
Blackshear were the only people with keys to the conference room where the tests were stored.
Principal Blackshear had 24 hour access to the building, but Smith was unsure of whether she
had limits on her card. She left the school each day at 3:00 p.m.
Smith denied participating in, or having knowledge of, cheating or testing irregularities.
She could not explain the high number of wrong-to-right erasures for many students.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Dr. Viola Blackshear (Principal)
When confronted by the GBI about meeting with teachers in advance of their interviews,
Blackshear denied providing teachers with CRCT data analysis for the purpose of assisting them
in interviews. She stated that several teachers approached her after their interviews with the GBI
and asked for their data. Blackshear prepared the CRCT data analysis because she needed to
justify the drop in test scores to her Executive Director, Tamara Cotman. Blackshear attributed
the drop in scores to new programs in reading and math.
When interviewed by the GBI, Principal Blackshear denied knowledge of, or
participating in, cheating. However, when we interviewed her, Principal Blackshear refused to
answer questions and asserted her Fifth Amendment rights to all questions asked.
2. Celesia Baugh (Teacher)
Celesia Baugh denied cheating. She further denied seating students in a particular order
or being instructed to do so. However, Baugh explained that the high numbers of wrong-to-right
erasures must be a result of someone altering the tests. Although students do erase, Baugh does
not believe that her students erased to the degree shown by the erasure analysis.
Baugh recalls Principal Blackshear telling teachers she believed the investigation to be a
"witch hunt" and that innocent people would get hurt. Blackshear stated she was glad that
everyone left school on time during test week. Blackshear mentioned certain common sense
things during that meeting that did not need to be pointed out. For example, Principal
Blackshear mentioned that the tests were locked up and then discussed the testing strategies used
at Woodson - the process of elimination and marking C as a placeholder if a student wanted to
skip a question and come back to it.
Baugh confirmed that she provided projection sheets to Principal Blackshear and Dixon
in the weeks leading up to the CRCT.
130
3. Debra Dixon (Instructional Liaison Specialist)
Debra Dixon was the Instructional Liaison Specialist at Woodson from 2005 until
November 2010 when she became the interim Principal at Usher Elementary. While at
Woodson, Dixon assisted with the CRCT as a hall monitor and as a classroom proctor for new or
struggling teachers.
During the 2009 CRCT, the materials were stored in the conference room next to
Principal Blackshear's office. Smith and Principal Blackshear had access to that room.
Blackshear had 24 hour access to the building. She requested that everyone leave the school
after administering the CRCT and that no one remain in the building after Blackshear left.
Dixon denied advising faculty to "do what they needed to do" to make targets.
E. Other Evidence
• In the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 school years, Woodson met
AYP.
• In 2010, Woodson did not make AYP.
• Principal Viola Blackshear was on a PDP in 2008-2009 for not meeting
APS targets.
• In some classes a correlation exists between students categorized by
teachers on projection sheets as "not meets" and students with the highest
erasures.
• A correlation exists between students who were "prompted" or assisted by
a teacher on the CRCT and students identified by the erasure analysis as
having the highest number of erasures.
• In some classes where teachers denied cheating, student data reveals that a
large number of students' answers were changed from wrong to right at a
70-100% success rate.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Delores Pickett, Celesia Bough and Ashlyn Strozier cheated on the
2009 CRCT. While other teachers denied assisting their students, based upon the statistical
improbability of even the lowest standard deviations in the flagged classes, we conclude that
other teachers likely prompted students in their classes as well, but were not truthful during this
investigation.
We also conclude that Testing Coordinator Dixon cheated by instructing teachers to seat
students strategically so the students could copy one another's work during the CRCT.
131
Principal Blackshear failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing activities and for
ensuring the ethical administration of and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. We conclude
from the statistical data and other evidence secured in this investigation that Principal Viola
Blackshear failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT and adequately supervise testing activities
and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting, or
erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
132
VIOLA BLACKSHEAR
You have information concerning cheating at your school on the 2009 CRCT test, don't
you?
You are refusing to provide these investigators with that information, aren't you?
You directed school employees to cheat on the 2009 CRCT, didn't you?
You coordinated cheating on the 2009 CRCT at your school, didn't you?
You facilitated the ability of school employees to cheat on the 2009 CRCT test, right?
You knew that school employees were cheating on the 2009 CRCT, didn't you?
You knew that teachers were providing student's with answers to the 2009 CRCT, didn't
you?
You changed student's answers on the 2009 CRCT test, didn't you?
You did not report violations of testing protocol as you were required to do by Georgia
law, did you?
In 2009, you were entrusted with ensuring that school employees act ethically?
Cheating is unethical isn't it?
You instructed your teachers to cheat on the 2009 CRCT didn't you?
You pressured your teachers to cheat on the 2009 CRCT didn't you?
You accepted bonus money from APS based on test scores you knew to be false?
Your school accepted federal money based in part on test scores you knew to be false?
By cheating on the CRCT you denied the State of Georgia an accurate assessment of your
student's academic performance?
By cheating CRCT you denied the parents of your students an accurate assessment of
their children's academic performance?
By cheating on the CRCT, you denied the children in your care an accurate assessment of
their own academic performance.
133
SCOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1752 Hollywood Road Principal: Roxianne Smith SRT-4 Executive Director: TamaraCotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30318 Testing Coordinator: Dr. Juanessa Booker
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Scott Elementary in 2009. Forty-six people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating at Scott is evidenced by a high
number of flagged classrooms and by witness testimony. Principal Roxianne Smith failed to
properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
68
1.4
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
51
1
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
19(17)
1(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
12.1
3.2
High Flagged Standard Deviation
20.2
3.2
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.4
3.2
134
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
BLACK
1 LA
4.826004496
NARCISSE
1 RD
3.474138687
SMITH
1 LA
7.690591885
SMITH
1 MA
6.070464107
DORSEY
2 LA
6.972660013
DORSEY
2 MA
15.4142974
GREEN
2 RD
8.746386998
GREEN
2 LA
6.164641216
GREEN
2 MA
5.017181495
HARRIS
2 RD
6.574296329
HARRIS
2 LA
11.59803391
HARRIS
2 MA
16.56563092
WORLDS
2 RD
11.3504833
WORLDS
2 LA
15.95132699
WORLDS
2 MA
13.68729712
GONGLEFSKI
3 RD
20.28051075
GONGLEFSKI
3 LA
6.422355453
GONGLEFSKI
3 MA
15.06647269
RUCKER
3 RD
19.43475948
RUCKER
3 LA
9.856691098
RUCKER
3 MA
16.49481446
QUACKENBUSH
3RD
16.53018878
QUACKENBUSH
3 LA
9.627092713
QUACKENBUSH
3 MA
17.8510615
HINES
3 RD
15.39361764
HINES
3 LA
8.938297558
HINES
3 MA
13.29794642
MCNABB
4 RD
11.59287424
MCNABB
4 LA
12.79366698
MCNABB
4 MA
9.484797502
HARVEY
4 RD
15.01810238
HARVEY
4 LA
16.4742188
HARVEY
4 MA
16.918895
YOUNG
4 RD
15.922633
YOUNG
4 LA
13.05905558
YOUNG
4 MA
16.74915896
CARTER
4 RD
15.57551544
CARTER
4 LA
13.95805355
CARTER
4 MA
15.74959352
GRAVES
5 RD
14.69595248
GRAVES
5 LA
5.226172536
GRAVES
5 MA
14.9440121
LAMORTE
5 RD
7.244467584
LAMORTE
5 LA
5.178221109
LAMORTE
5 MA
5.100796052
JOHNSON
5 RD
16.12806351
JOHNSON
5 LA
8.327324423
JOHNSON
5 MA
14.08356504
SANTIAGUE
5 RD
17.03215583
SANTIAGUE
5 LA
13.29241273
SANTIAGUE
5 MA
14.41592043
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Scott Elementary School was
not managed in a way to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported to the State
Department of Education.
135
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 68% for the 2009 CRCT. There were only
nine schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT
only one school had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Scott.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
from 68% to 1.4%.
Fourth, of the 51 flagged classrooms at Scott, 49 (96% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and 32 classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at Scott.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Scott, 93% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 68% of
the total classrooms in the school.
Finally, test security was lax at Scott. People were allowed to come in and out of the
testing coordinator's office while the CRCT materials were inside, and black paper covered the
window in the door.
B. Narrative
Principal Smith and Dr. Juanessa Booker had access to the CRCT materials. The tests
were stored overnight in a locked closet in Smith's office. Dr. Booker took the tests to her office
during the day for distribution and collection. The tests remained in Dr. Booker's office
throughout the day after testing ended. A teacher testified that the paraprofessional assigned to
her classroom, Letrecia Walker, admitted to changing answers in Booker's office at Principal
Smith's direction.
Booker's cousin, Antwan Joseph, was the math coach at Scott and was observed in
Booker's office where the tests were accessible during testing week. Several witnesses reported
that the window in Booker's door was covered with black paper during the 2009 CRCT.
APS received anonymous calls in February 2010 reporting cheating at Scott during 2009
and other years. One caller reported that tests were erased and changed in Dr. Booker's office in
2009 and that her window was covered with paper. Another caller reported that in 2008 and
2009, teachers covered their doors with paper during CRCT testing. In April 2010, APS hired
attorney Penn Payne, to conduct an external investigation into the charges at the same time the
Blue Ribbon Commission was investigating Scott and other schools flagged by GOSA. Payne
interviewed eight people, including Booker and Principal Smith, who denied knowledge of
cheating and denied that any windows were covered with paper. Payne's report, issued on May
25, 2010, concluded that the anonymous tips were unsubstantiated.
136
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Edwina Monique Browne (Special Education)
Monique Browne was a special education teacher at Scott in 2009. She stated that her
paraprofessional, Letrecia Walker, admitted to changing answers on the 2009 CRCT for
Principal Roxianne Smith. Principal Smith had a group of "favorites" who would do anything
for her, including Letrecia Walker, Testing Coordinator Juanessa Booker, and math coach
Antwan Joseph. Principal Smith had access to the tests because they were secured in her office
closet, and Booker also had access to the tests because teachers picked them up and returned
them to Booker's office. People came in and out of Booker's office during test week.
Browne stated she felt undue pressure by administrators to get students to score higher
on the CRCT. She was surprised that her students scored so high on the test, and said that third
grade teachers were also surprised by their students' performance.
Browne said the general discussion around school was that there was cheating and that it
came from the "top down."
2. Cynthia Butler (Teacher)
Cynthia Butler testified that she saw black paper placed over the window in Booker's
door. Math coach Antwan Joseph and Juanessa Booker are cousins. Joseph was in Booker's
office many times during testing. Butler stated that any cheating would have been done by
administrators because teachers had no time or opportunity to change answers.
3. April Graves (Teacher)
April Graves was a fifth grade teacher in 2009. She was flagged in all three subjects and
stated that she did not witness her students making the amount of erasures indicated by the
GOSA data.
4. Darin Johnson (Teacher)
Darin Johnson, a fifth grade teacher flagged in all subjects, stated students passed the
CRCT who typically performed poorly throughout the year and on other tests. Students who
missed school and did not turn in homework passed the CRCT. Johnson stated that one student
considered "mediocre" had one of the highest wrong-to-right erasure counts.
5. Bonita Dorsey (Teacher)
Bonita Dorsey, a flagged second grade teacher, stated that she did not believe her
students erased as much as the GSOA data indicates.
6. Stacey Carter (Teacher)
Stacey Carter heard of cheating at Scott. She denied cheating and did not know of
anyone who cheated, but believed something must have happened to produce the data reported.
137
7. Lorrae Walker (Teacher)
Lorrae Walker was a teacher at Scott in 2009 who tested three students requiring special
accommodations. Walker said it was inconceivable that they could have managed to change so
many answers from wrong to right without intervention, as one student could not read and the
others were not high functioning. Walker believes cheating occurred at Scott even though the
cheaters did not manage to have Scott meet targets. Walker had no direct knowledge but
believes administrators were most likely involved in the cheating.
8. Etoile Green (Teacher)
Etoile Green saw Antwan Joseph in Juanessa Booker's office where tests were kept.
Green recalled being very surprised by her students' high scores.
9. Liza Williams (Teacher)
Liza Williams saw black paper over the window of Juanessa Booker's door during testing
week. She stated that Booker, Principal Smith, Antwan Joseph, and Letrecia Walker were a
close-knit group.
10. Erin Quachenbush (Teacher)
Erin Quackenbush had no direct evidence but believes the answers were changed by
Booker because she had access to the tests.
11. Tonette Hunter (Teacher 's Assistant)
Tonette Hunter was a teacher's assistant at Scott in 2007. Hunter served as a proctor
during the 2007 CRCT. She stated that on the Thursday or Friday before the CRCT was to
begin, Principal Roxianne Smith held a meeting with Ms. Hunter and other teacher's assistants
and parapros. Smith told them that they needed to "do all they could to make sure the children
pass" the CRCT. As she spoke, Principal Smith demonstrated her point by walking among the
group, looking over their shoulders, and pointing down as if pointing out answers. After the
meeting, Hunter said to Smith, "Well, this is not going to help the children." Principal Smith
replied that Hunter would not be helping her salary if she did not cooperate. Smith also told
Hunter, "You're overstepping your boundaries."
Hunter testified that she did not participate in prompting or assisting students during the
test administration. After the CRCT concluded, Principal Smith asked Hunter how the testing
went. Hunter told her, "I don't know, you're going to have to wait for your results."
A week after the CRCT, Hunter telephoned SRT Executive Director Tamara Cotman to
report Principal Smith' s directive to prompt students during testing, and other concerns she had
about the school. The next day Cotman arrived at Scott and called Hunter into a meeting with
Principal Smith. Cotman told Hunter that if she "did not keep her mouth shut" and kept causing
problems at Scott, "you will be gone." Hunter then went to see Dr. Beverly Hall to discuss the
cheating allegations and other concerns, but could not get an appointment. A woman from Dr.
Hall's office met with Hunter in the lobby and listened to her, but took no notes during the
138
meeting. Hunter felt that she was being treated as if she were a "problem employee." She heard
nothing from the Superintendent's office in response to her report. Hunter subsequently spoke to
Atlanta School Board member LaChandra Butler Burks about the incidents at Scott Elementary,
but Ms. Butler Burks did not respond as promised. In June 2010, during the Blue Ribbon
Commission's investigation, Hunter reported the 2007 CRCT cheating allegations to the APS
hotline. A copy of Hunter's hotline complaint is included as Attachment A.
Ms. Hunter was fired in May 2007, allegedly for attendance issues, although Hunter
contends her termination was in retaliation for her complaints about cheating and other matters
she reported about Scott Elementary.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Roxianne Smith (Principal)
Roxianne Smith came to Scott as principal in 2006-2007. She deferred to Juanessa
Booker's experience as testing coordinator and took a hands-off role other than monitoring the
halls. The tests were locked in Principal Smith's office overnight, and Booker took them to her
office daily for distribution. The tests remained in Booker's office during the day "because
that's the way it was done" before Principal Smith came to Scott. She did not recall whether
there was paper covering the window of Booker's door, and was unsure whether it was
permissible. Principal Smith claimed no knowledge of people gathering in Booker's office with
the tests and erasing answers. She also stated that if anyone said that Letrecia Walker changed
answers at her direction, they were lying.
Principal Smith was interviewed by Penn Payne concerning testing irregularities at Scott
in 2009. Payne did not inform her of the specific allegations and Smith did not inquire into the
details of the accusation. When the report of Payne's investigation was made public, Smith
made no attempt to obtain a copy. She did not recall whether she spoke with Booker about
Payne's investigation and did not recall asking Booker whether she had been interviewed.
Scott Elementary School did not meet targets under Principal Smith's leadership. She
"did not know" if she felt pressure to meet targets or whether her job could be in jeopardy,
although she was placed on a PDP twice, in part for failure to meet targets. She was evasive
when asked if she had spoken with anyone about this investigation, and reluctant to name those
to whom she had spoken.
Smith denied that she directed Juanessa Booker to change answers. She was not aware if
teachers had the opportunity to change answers in the classrooms. When asked repeatedly if she
believed students had made the erasures on their own, she only stated each time that they were
the people "who had pencils and erasers" during the test.
2. Letrecia Walker (Paraprofessional)
Letrecia Walker was a paraprofessional for Monique Browne. She denied that she
changed answers at Principal Smith's direction and denied being in Juanessa Booker's office
with the tests. She heard that Booker's door was covered with black paper.
139
Letrecia Walker stated that Principal Smith called teachers and paraprofessionals
separately into her office after learning about the flagged classes. Smith questioned her about the
testing and she felt that Smith was trying to intimidate her.
3. Dr. Juanessa Booker (Testing Coordinator)
Dr. Juanessa Booker was the Instructional Liaison Specialist and Testing Coordinator at
Scott in 2009. She was aware of allegations she changed answers on the 2009 CRCT and denied
erasing any answers. Students should have erased stray marks but if tests were turned in with
stray marks, they could be erased by teachers. Booker denied there was paper covering her door
and denied she was inside her office with test booklets. Booker claimed the tests were kept
locked in Principal Smith's office. Both she and Principal Smith had the key.
Booker denied cheating or knowledge of cheating. She felt the CRCT scores accurately
reflected the students' performance and was not surprised by the results.
4. Antwan Joseph (Math Facilitator)
Antwan Joseph was the math coach at Scott in 2009. Joseph denied cheating on the
CRCT. During the 2009 CRCT, Joseph tested small groups of special education students and
administered makeup tests. He and Testing Coordinator Juanessa Booker are first cousins and
worked together previously at Towns Elementary. Joseph, Booker, and reading facilitator
Cynthia Butler were considered part of Principal Smith's "administrative team." He and Butler
assisted Booker with distributing and collecting the tests, which Joseph stated were kept in the
lounge/parent center across the hall from Dr. Booker's office. Joseph thought that the custodian,
Principal Smith and Dr. Booker had keys to the lounge. He did not recall the window being
covered with paper and believed that the door to the lounge was usually open. Joseph stated that
the tests were only in Booker's office when they were initially sorted and when they were packed
up to go back to the Brewer Center. He did not believe that the tests were stored in the
principal's office in 2009, but was not certain.
When asked why people would report that he and Booker were seen together in Booker's
office during testing, Joseph first stated that it would not be unusual for people to see them
together because the "administrative team" worked together closely. He did not know why
anyone would state that he and Booker spent "extra" time together in her office during testing,
because she was very busy. Later Joseph admitted that there were times when he was with
Booker in her office with the tests. He did not elaborate. He denied that Booker's office window
was covered with paper.
Joseph knew there were allegations about cheating at Scott, but did not know the details.
He was surprised to learn during his interview that his cousin, Dr. Booker, had been investigated
by Penn Payne concerning the cheating allegations. Although they were "very close," Booker
had not informed him of the Payne investigation.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Testing Coordinator Juanessa Booker erased and changed student
answer sheets with Antwan Joseph in her office after testing concluded. Principal Roxianne
140
Smith directed others to cheat. We believe teachers and proctors followed Principal Smith's
directive to cheat, but do not have sufficient evidence to determine which teachers.
Principal Roxianne Smith failed in her responsibility for testing activities and for
ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for, the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this investigation that
Principal Smith failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing
activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying,
misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
141
Report* 1 1 406057-1
ATLANTA EDUCATION FUND
Page 1 of 2
Ethics and Comptiance Reporting
General Information
Caller Name: TONETTE HUNTER
Type: Former Employee
Title: TEACHER ASSISTANT
Phorw: (404)91 4-281 1
Best Time to Call: BETWEEN 3 AM AND 3 PM
Emaif: fonichunter@hotfnaiI.cQin
Client Name: Atlanta Education Fund
Location U: SCOTT ELEMENTARY !
DBA: ATLANTA EDUCATION FUND (C I
Address: HOLLOWAY ROAD j
City,State(Zip: ATLANTA - GA |
Country; USA '
Phone: !
[Report #: 114060574
Priority:
Trans #: 1
Kpt Date: 06/23/2010
Time: 01:15PM
Origin; Phone Calf
Summary Information
-1
WHO:
WHAT:
WHEN:
WHERE:
Caller, TONETTE HUNTER, reported ROXANNE SMITH and BEVERLY HALL.
Cheating on Standardized Tests
ONGOING SINCE 03/2007, EXACT DATE UNKNOWN
AT THE LOCATION
Incident Description
5/23/2010 t:15:00 PM - Original Call
Caller, HUNTER, reported ongoing since 03/2007, exact date unknown, during testing time for the Criteria Reference Tests,
Principal, Roxanne SMITH, advised all Teacher's Assistants to guide Students to the rtgfit answers when they were taking this
test, HUNTER stated that when she worked at this location. Superintendent, Beverly HALL, ignored requests for help regarding
this issue.
HUNTER would like for HALL and SMITH removed from their positions within (he school system because HUNTER feels that
! HALL and SMITH are not qualified to oversee t!ie education of children.
How does the caller know about the incident?: Witnessed
What documentation is available?: none
Involved Parties
Reported Individuals;
Name: BEVERLY HALL
Title: SUPERINTENDENT
Name: ROXANNE SMITH
Title: PRINCIPAL
Management Notified: NO
Involved/Aware Parties : NO
Supplemental Information
How does the ealfer know about hotline: Poster
Interviewer Observations:
Additional Information
Have you reported this incident to Atlanta Public
Schools, the Atlanta Board of Education, Georgia
Department of Education or other organization?
Which organization did you report it to?
YES
THE OFFICE OF BEVERLY HALL
GOSA APS_AEF.EL.0ISS17
142
Report* 1 14060574 ATLANTA EDUCATION FUND Page 2 or 2
Is (he issue you're reporting related to a specific grade NO
or class?
What is your relationship to the school or school PREVIOUS EMPLOYEE
system? (i.g., parent, teacher, concerned citizen, etc,}
Client Instructions
The catler has predicted bis/her name and/or contact intorrnattcrr indicating an interest in discussing this matter with a company representative
Conditions
Th* inform a I ran contatnecf fn Iftis repot was provided by 3 third party source. The Network, Inc. does not verify th« accuracy or trie completeness of the
inform a I ton contained In Ihis report, and tber_fo(e, cafinot guarantee j1& accuracy or oompletenasa, _______-__,,
f you have questions, concerns or updafes such as escalation and/cr dissemination Instructions relative to our service or this
linckfenl report please corilact us a1 ''cfisnjcQmniuntcafiQn^lnwInc.cQm.'' _ _ ________
GOSA APS AEF EL_f)l5S|8
143
DEERWOOD ACADEMY
3070 Fairburn Road Principal: Dr. Lisa Smith SRT-1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis- Williams
Atlanta, Georgia 3033 1 Testing Coordinator: Lavonia Ferrell
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred at Deerwood Academy on the CRCT in 2009 and the summer of 2008.
Thirty-seven people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. One person
confessed to cheating on the CRCT in the spring of 2009 and the summer of 2008. Cheating at
Deerwood is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, confessions, and witness
testimony. Principal Smith knew of cheating in 2009 and failed to properly monitor the 2009
CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
47.8
8.6
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
43
7
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
21(15)
6(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
6.5
3.8
High Flagged Standard Deviation
15.3
4.4
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3
3.4
144
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
TT/"lT?ATT3T T/IT^T T7
HL/K1N rSU L-lvLL
1 T A
1 LA
1 A /1/1007^0 t
HLJK1N rSU L-lvLL
1 ATA
1 1V1A
1 I 1^/1H77C/1
1 1. J J4U / / o4
t m wi\ /TAW
L,KJ W MAIN
1 DT»
1 KU
4. 144ojui jy
t m wi\ /TAW
L,KJ W MAIN
1 T A
1 LA
/I 0CKQ/10A77
4.zyjy4zu / /
T ("*\X?AT A XT
1 A ) W 1V1 A 1M
1 ATA
1 1V1 A
i£ 9/171 91 0i£^
O.S4 / 1 ft 1 ZOJ
ML, 1 JK ) W LLL
1 KU
/i i /i/i 9^m io
4. 144ojui jy
ML. UL-> W LLL
1 T A
1 LA
0.4ZJU /44U4
}\l\sD\J W LLL
1 ATA
1 1V1A
cm c7nc^o£
o.Ulo /UoJZO
MW1NKWL
1 T A
1 LA
£ /IO Si^O/1^1
MW1NKWL
1 AT A
1 1V1A
Q 1 ^7^177/17
y. 1 J / JJ / /4/
r LLrv
1 1007/1Q/100
J.Jzz /4y4zz
r LLJS.
1 T A
1 LA
£ ^1Q779Q00
TJTTTTT^
r LLlS.
1 ATA
1 M.A
G TT7 V* T T T7 XT C
tD 1 Lr 11L1M f)
1 ATA
1 MA
/.'4zjJUji+y /
^L/N.LL I
Z KU
/.yu/^tzJj^tz
^L/N.LL I
IT A
Z LA
1 1 i noo
^L/N.LL I
TATA
Z MA
1 ^ 0^"7i^Q^ 1 ^
Ij.zj iXyyj 1 J
Z KU
O. /4-JZZJ 354
rUKU
TATA
z MA
^ ^ri90^ 1 A/17
TIT7XTTJ T7 V
OTA
Z LA
i£ /109/10917C
T-TTTXTT? TT V
TATA
Z MA
j.jjjjDZ 14/
TIT TT7T7
HUr r
Z KU
/i i ssoms/n
4. 1 oOzUzo4z
TTT TT7T7
HUr r
Z LA
1 riO 7/1 9 9 1 £
J . Uz / 4o o 1 0
TTT TTTT7
rlUr r
TATA
Z MA
A 1 11 009Qfl£
4. 1 JlZZoyUO
WTT T T A AT C
W 1 1 A A AMl"»
IT A
^ 1/in 1 7^ 1 nc
J..^41J 1 / J 1 US
\X?TT T T A ATC
W 1LL1 AM?>
TATA
z MA
DLsXJ W IN
1 T A
J LA
j.u'i-oj i zy i
DKU w IN
1 AT A
J MA
1 1 ^/i^no^/i
J.J J04uUy J4
TOXTTT ^
J WIN to
o.4i j joy /o
TT?Tr,T-TT7
J KU
1 f^1/11Q1 91
j.ojj4jyioi
A /f A T T (~YB V
MALLL/K I
4 KU
1 1 /1/109fl9£9
1 J.44zoUoOS
1\ T A T T (~YB V
IV 1 AL LUK I
A T A
4- LA
/i nori/i97i ii
4.UZU4S / 1 JJ
MALLORY
4 MA
8.110691366
MCCULLEY
4 RD
3.067927107
WRIGHT
4 MA
4.754356328
DIGGS
5 LA
4.325432673
FRIEDLAND
5 RD
3.988983477
FRIEDLAND
5 MA
4.684581072
WARMACK
5 RD
6.530709212
WARMACK
5 LA
8.598697939
WARMACK
5 MA
5.589028002
WOODARD
5 RD
7.371264749
WOODARD
5 LA
9.676369378
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
Several facts point to the conclusion that Deerwood Academy was not managed to ensure
that CRCT results were accurately reported to the Georgia Department of Education.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 47.8% for the 2009 CRCT. With state
monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped from 47.8% to 8.6%.
145
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only five schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Deerwood.
Fourth, of the 43 flagged classrooms at Deerwood, 26 (60% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and six classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that this number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Deerwood.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Deerwood, 70% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for 47.8%
of the total classrooms in the school.
Last, teacher Margaret Merkerson says that she and Testing Coordinator Lavonia Ferrell
changed student answer sheets during the summer 2008 CRCT retest, and the 2009 CRCT.
Assistant Principal Tabeeka Jordan knew of and approved this cheating in 2008 and 2009.
Principal Lisa Smith knew of and approved this cheating in 2009.
B. Narrative
In July 2008, students from five schools came to Deerwood for the CRCT math retest.
This was the first year that the summer CRCT scores would count towards AYP. Deerwood
Assistant Principal Tabeeka Jordan was in charge of testing and asked Lavonia Ferrell to be
Testing Coordinator. Ferrell asked retired teacher Margaret Merkerson to assist with organizing
the testing materials. Tabeeka Jordan and Lavonia Ferrell orchestrated a scheme to ensure that
the school made AYP. Jordan pulled several Deerwood students out of class and had Merkerson
test them separately, although Merkerson had not been trained to administer the test. After
testing was over, Ferrell asked Merkerson to assist her in erasing and changing test answer sheets
of Deerwood students, using the answer keys Ferrell made. The window on the conference room
door was covered with paper while Ferrell and Merkerson changed answer sheets in the
conference room adjoining the principal's office. Assistant Principal Jordan came in and out of
the room and witnessed their actions.
The results from the summer of 2008 CRCT retest showed improbable gains for
Deerwood students. This resulted in a state investigation and an investigation done by APS.
For the 2009 CRCT at Deerwood, Jordan again asked Lavonia Ferrell to serve as testing
coordinator. Merkerson had a temporary assignment at Deerwood and also assisted Ferrell.
Merkerson and Ferrell erased and changed student answer sheets in the principal's conference
room for several days, just as they did in 2008. Ferrell prepared answer keys for various versions
of the tests. Ferrell sometimes selected answer sheets of students she knew were proficient in
math to prepare those answer keys. Jordan came in and out of the room and witnessed the
erasing. Principal Lisa Smith also came in and out from her adjoining office while erasing was
in progress.
146
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Margaret Merkerson (Teacher)
Margaret Merkerson confessed to cheating on the 2008 and 2009 CRCT.
Tn 2008, Merkerson was a substitute teacher at Fickett Elementary. Tn July 2008, she was
asked by Lavonia Ferrell to assist with the administration of the summer 2008 CRCT math retest
to be given at Deerwood. Ferrell was the testing coordinator at Deerwood. Jordan supervised
this testing. Working as an unpaid volunteer, Merkerson assisted Ferrell in organizing the tests in
the conference room that adjoined the principal's office. Ferrell told Merkerson that Jordan
wanted to ensure Deerwood made AYP. Merkerson and Ferrell sat at the conference room table
and changed answers from wrong to right, using test keys that Ferrell made. Students from five
different schools were tested. Merkerson thinks that they only changed answers of Deerwood
students, but was not certain because Ferrell selected the answer sheets to be changed. A piece
of paper covered the window on the door that led into the hall. Jordan came in and out of the
conference room and saw the erasing. Jordan asked Merkerson to administer the test to
Deerwood students she pulled out of class, although Merkerson had not received the required
training. Merkerson recalled meeting Principal Smith in summer 2008 when Smith was at the
school. Smith was not acting as the principal of Deerwood during the summer session.
In 2009, Merkerson worked at Deerwood as a long-term substitute. During the 2009
CRCT, she served as a proctor for Mr. Warmack's fifth grade class. She assisted Testing
Coordinator Lavonia Ferrell in Principal Smith's conference room by erasing and changing
answer sheets for three or four days, just as they had done the previous summer. Ferrell prepared
answer keys and the window of the door leading into the hall was covered with paper. Ferrell
sometimes complained that Merkerson erased "too slowly." The first group of answer sheets
Merkerson changed were from Warmack's class. She does not think that she or Ferrell changed
answers of first and second grade students.
Principal Smith and Jordan were aware of the cheating. Both came in and out of the
conference room at various times while answers were being erased and changed. The test
booklets and answer sheets were stacked on the table in plain view. Principal Smith would walk
in from her office and ask how they were doing, as she grabbed a snack and returned to her
office. Jordan would come in more often and sometimes stayed and talked awhile. Merkerson
and Ferrell did not stop erasing when Jordan or Smith came in and did not try to hide the answer
sheets, which were on the table.
Merkerson is remorseful for what she did in 2008 and 2009. She was shocked to learn
after the April 2009 CRCT that an investigation was being launched concerning the results of the
2008 retest. When attorney Penn Payne began her investigation in June 2009, Merkerson
received calls from Ferrell and Jordan, who tried to convince her that she had not actually
administered the test to anyone in summer 2008.
We monitored several conversations between Margaret Merkerson and Lavonia Ferrell.
During one discussion, Merkerson told Ferrell that she was thinking about telling the truth to the
Governor's investigators about being in the room erasing answers with Ferrell. Lavonia Ferrell
147
told Merkerson that they had done nothing wrong and warned her not to tell what they had done,
unless she wanted to be "locked up." In other conversations, Ferrell stated that investigators had
no evidence. Merkerson asked Ferrell if they should both just tell the truth to which Ferrell
responded that if they did they might get in trouble for perjury.
2. Tabitha Martin (Reading Facilitator)
Tabitha Martin was certain there was cheating on the CRCT because she had access to
students' test scores and knew that some students who could not read were scoring at high levels.
The students' scores did not match their classroom performance. She recalled that Jordan was in
charge of the summer 2008 CRCT testing, and afterward there were a lot of good grades and
students had vastly improved test scores. She noticed that during testing in 2009, Jordan, Ferrell,
and Merkerson would stay late. Martin heard some teachers used voice inflection when reading
questions, and that hand signals were being used.
Tabitha Martin said the administration knew from the data how many students needed to
pass the CRCT. Teachers would be told how many students they needed to exceed expectations
and were asked how many they thought would pass. Teachers were asked how they were going
to get the students to pass the test.
3. Kristy McDowell (Teacher)
Kristy McDowell had a student who could not read. The student passed the reading
section of the CRCT. She knew other students who should have had lower test scores.
McDowell denied any involvement in cheating.
4. Amy Lowman (Teacher)
Amy Lowman recounted discussions of cheating she heard. She heard that Kristy
McDowell used voice inflection, Zanetta Hornbuckle gave answers, and Betty Jean Peak taught
students to listen to her pauses for cues. Lowman heard that during the Summer 2008 retest,
Tabeeka Jordan pulled some Deerwood students out to be tested separately. Lowman was
shocked that her classes were flagged for high wrong-to-right erasures since her students scored
so low.
5. Abigail Currens (Teacher)
Abigail Currens was an Early Intervention Program teacher in 2009 and taught math and
reading to fifth graders. Currens heard several discussions of cheating on tests. Students taking
the ITBS test told her that they had seen the test questions before in Rita Lawrence's class.
6. Mary Mallory (Teacher)
Mary Mallory was a fourth grade teacher in 2009. She was surprised that one particular
student who typically scored in the 600 range, made over 800 on the CRCT.
148
7. Betty Jean Peak
Betty Jean Peak was a fifth grade teacher at Deerwood in 2008. She stated there were
students in her class who could not read. She identified specific students who did not pass the
spring 2008 CRCT and had to attend summer school. Although Peak knew that those students
did not have the ability to pass the summer 2008 CRCT, they were promoted to sixth grade and
some passed the CRCT by 2 to 3 points. Peak denied cheating on the CRCT.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Lisa Smith (Principal)
Lisa Smith stated that she saw no cheating at Deerwood and no one reported cheating to
her. Principal Smith felt that she had been wrongly targeted for cheating during the Summer
2008 CRCT. She said she was not the principal in residence during the 2008 summer session.
She felt she had been referred to the Professional Standards Commission as part of a witch hunt.
Smith was temporarily removed as principal of Deerwood after the 2009 CRCT, but was
reinstated in June 2010.
Dr. Smith admitted that paper covered the window in the door of her conference room in
2008 and 2009. The window was uncovered at the recommendation of the PSC.
Principal Smith was placed on a PDP in 2008 for low student achievement. She said she
only told her administrative staff she was on a PDP. She admitted putting Jordan on a PDP in
2008 but claimed it was for behavioral issues.
With regard to the CRCT, Principal Smith said that she never touched CRCT materials
and never went into the classrooms during testing. Smith did not feel pressure to meet targets
but also did not like the feeling she and her staff experienced at the Convocation when the
school's targets were not met. Deerwood did not make targets or AYP in 2008, but did make
AYP in 2009 and 2010. Principal Smith denied ever directing anyone to cheat or change
answers on the 2009 CRCT, and denied any knowledge or involvement in cheating. She did not
understand how it would be possible for testing administrators to make answer keys or breach
the security measures.
Smith was informed by SRT-1 Executive Director Sharon Davis- Williams in early 2009
that inquiries were being made into Deerwood' s summer 2008 results. Testing protocols were to
be tightened for the 2009 CRCT. Principal Smith requested that Ferrell return as the testing
coordinator. She denied ever seeing anyone erasing and changing answers in her conference
room. Anyone claiming they changed answers in the conference room was lying.
2. Lavonia Ferrell (Testing Coordinator)
Lavonia Ferrell was questioned about allegations of cheating and testing improprieties on
the 2008 Summer Retest and 2009 CRCT. She had no information to provide. Ferrell was
informed that investigators monitored telephone calls between her and others. Investigators
played a portion of one recording to show her that calls had been recorded. Ferrell reiterated that
she had no information to provide.
149
3. Tabeeka Jordan
Jordan was suspended from APS from August 2009 until June 2010, and since that time
has been on medical leave pending hearings into allegations of cheating at Deerwood. Jordan
denied any cheating or knowledge of cheating at Deerwood during the summer of 2008 and the
spring of 2009. She denied knowledge of Lavonia Ferrell and Margaret Merkerson erasing and
changing answers in the principal's conference room during either test administration. She did
not know how they would have had the opportunity to cheat. Jordan claimed she did not go in
and out of the conference room except when the tests were being distributed. She stated that if
she had witnessed erasing she would have questioned what was happening. Jordan admitted that
Merkerson tested a small group of Deerwood students, but maintained that Merkerson had been
trained by Ferrell to administer testing.
Jordan admitted she was friends with Ferrell and Principal Smith, and had spoken with
both of them concerning their interviews during this investigation. She did not believe that
Ferrell participated in cheating and believed that Merkerson had "memory problems." Anyone
who claimed that Jordan directed or facilitated cheating was lying.
E. Other Evidence
Teachers say they were pressured by Principal Smith to meet targets. Several were placed
on a PDP for not meeting performance standards. It was important to Principal Smith to "make
the floor" each year.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Lavonia Ferrell and Margaret Merkerson erased and changed student
answer sheets during the 2008 summer retest CRCT and the spring 2009 CRCT. Tabeeka Jordan
directed and witnessed the cheating in 2008 and 2009. Principal Lisa Smith witnessed the
cheating in 2009.
It is our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation, that Principal Smith failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately
supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for,
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
150
HUMPHRIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
3029 Humphries Drive Principal: Donald Clark SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30354 Testing Coordinator: Christi Davis-Langston
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Humphries Elementary in 2009 and in other years.
Fifty people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Two people confessed to
cheating. Cheating at Humphries is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms,
confessions, witness testimony, and Principal Donald Clark's refusal to answer questions about
cheating. Clark and Testing Coordinator Christi Davis-Langston knew or should have known of
the cheating in 2009 and in other years. Principal Clark failed to properly monitor the 2009
CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2(11(1
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
46.7
10.4
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
21
5
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
8(7)
3(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
9.0
5.4
High Flagged Standard Deviation
21.4
7.2
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.7
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
POWERS
1 RD
3.509111489
POWERS
1 LA
4.586102472
POWERS
1 MA
4.260461109
BUTLER
2 MA
5.190621156
SEALS
2 RD
4.228229406
SEALS
2 LA
3.880424229
MCNAMEE
3 RD
9.624865356
MCNAMEE
3 LA
6.422355453
MCNAMEE
3 MA
3.104472432
PASIVE
3 RD
7.025927454
PASIVE
3 LA
6.658610242
PASIVE
3 MA
4.300672458
ABELLA
4 RD
13.25179281
ABELLA
4 LA
21.43438688
ABELLA
4 MA
13.12665736
AHMED
4 RD
16.64351795
AHMED
4 LA
8.056040448
AHMED
4 MA
10.84091485
TERRY
4 RD
15.55531856
TERRY
4 LA
12.53867805
TERRY
4 MA
15.68865008
151
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Humphries Elementary School
was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported to the Georgia
Department of Education.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms was 46.7% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only 25 schools in APS with a higher percentage that year.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only eight schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Humphries Elementary
School.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
significantly from 46.7% to 10.4%.
Fourth, of the 21 flagged classrooms at Humphries Elementary School, 14 (67% of the
total) had standard deviations that exceeded five, and eight classrooms exceeded ten standard
deviations. At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred
without adult intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard
deviations the probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations
from the state mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad
scale at this school.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Humphries, 71.4% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
46.7% of the total classrooms in the school.
Sixth, at least three proctors asked to be assigned other duties because they witnessed
cheating by teachers on the 1TB S test or the CRCT. Two teachers admitted to cheating on the
2009 CRCT.
Last, Principal Clark knew that cheating occurred on the 2009 CRCT, and attempted to
cover up the misconduct. Lillian Lockhart told Clark she witnessed cheating. Mr. Clark told
her, "If you don't tell me anything, I won't have to report anything."
B. Narrative
The fourth grade at Humphries was compartmentalized, meaning that one teacher taught
science and social studies, one taught math, and one taught language arts and reading. The
fourth grade teachers were instructed by Principal Clark to walk between each other's
homerooms during the 2009 CRCT. While walking in each other's classrooms, Wendy Ahmed,
Ingrid Abella, and Lisa Terry prompted students, and verbally gave answers or hand signals to
indicate the correct answers. Two proctors, Demetrius Carroll and Adrienne Woods, witnessed
152
testing violations by Wendy Ahmed, Ingrid Abella, or Lisa Terry during testing in 2009 and
asked to be removed as proctors. Lillian Lockhart also witnessed Wendy Ahmed giving hand
signals to students during the administration of the 2009 CRCT and asked to be removed as a
proctor. She was removed. No action was taken by the testing coordinator or Principal Clark to
report this misconduct.
In 2010, Principal Clark informed the teachers at a meeting that GBI agents would be
coming to the school to investigate allegations of cheating. Lillian Lockhart approached
Principal Clark and told him what she saw in 2009, and told him she would tell the investigators
what she saw. Principal Clark asked Lockhart why she was reporting this to him now, and stated
"if you don't tell me anything, I don't have to report anything." Lockhart told Principal Clark
that she only witnessed hand signals, not erasing. The next day Principal Clark called Lockhart
to his office and asked her if she wanted to talk about what she saw, but again cautioned her, "If
you don't tell me anything, I won't have to report anything." Confused and fearful, Lockhart
told him she had nothing to report.
Lockhart later told Testing Coordinator Christi Davis-Langston what she witnessed in
2009, and that she had relayed the same to Principal Clark. Davis-Langston went to Principal
Clark and relayed what Lockhart told her. Principal Clark separately instructed Lockhart and
Davis-Langston not to discuss the matter with anyone. Lockhart ignored this instruction and
discussed the matter further with Davis-Langston, and both went to Principal Clark's office.
Principal Clark became angry and berated them for refusing to follow his instruction of silence.
Later, Principal Clark told Lockhart that he would have to file an OIR report on the
incident. Clark instructed Lockhart to prepare a statement about what she witnessed in 2009.
She prepared a statement but left out the majority of the details, because she believed that is what
Principal Clark wanted her to do.
APS sent Penn Payne to investigate the matter. Lockhart testified that Ms. Payne's
questions seemed designed to make her feel as she were betraying her friends and her school.
Lockhart admitted she minimized the cheating she witnessed to Payne.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Joanne Carroll (Proctor)
Joanne Carroll witnessed Maria Pasive prompt students during the administration of the
2009 ITBS test, and requested to be removed as her proctor for the 2009 CRCT. We attempted
to interview Maria Pasive on multiple occasions, but did not locate her.
2. Adrienne Woods (Proctor)
Adrienne Woods witnessed "irregularities" on the 2008 CRCT, and requested to be
assigned to a different classroom for the 2009 CRCT. In 2009 many of the fourth grade students
could only read on a second grade level, but exceeded expectations on the CRCT.
153
3. Tonia Clark (Proctor)
Tonia Clark admitted to prompting students during the 2009 CRCT. She witnessed Lisa
Terry instructing students to change answers during the 2009 CRCT. She also saw Wendy
Ahmed verbally giving students the answers on the test.
4. Lillian Lockhart (Proctor)
Lillian Lockhart witnessed Wendy Ahmed giving students answers to the 2009 CRCT by
giving hand signals while standing in front of the classroom. After witnessing Wendy Ahmed
cheating, Lockhart requested a new assignment for the remainder of the 2009 CRCT from
Testing Coordinator Christi Davis-Langston. Lockhart did not provide a reason for this request,
nor did she report the cheating she witnessed.
Later, in 2010, Principal Clark informed Humphries' teachers that investigators would be
coming to the school with regard to cheating on the 2009 CRCT. Lockhart went to Clark and
disclosed the cheating she witnessed, and told Principal Clark she would tell the investigators
what she saw. Clark asked Lockhart why she failed to report the incident in 2009, and said, "If
you don't tell me anything, I won't have to report anything." Lockhart told Principal Clark that
she only witnessed Wendy Ahmed making hand gestures and not any erasing. The next day
Clark again called Lockhart to his office and told her, "If you don't tell me anything, I won't
have to report anything." Lockhart told Principal Clark that she had nothing to report.
Clark instructed Lockhart not to speak with anyone about the incident but she spoke with
Davis-Langston, who in turn spoke with Clark. He called them both to his office and berated
them for talking to one another when he instructed them not to. He then told Lockhart that he
would have to report the incident to OIR, and instructed her to write a statement about what she
witnessed. Lockhart wrote a statement and intentionally left out most of the details because she
believed Principal Clark wanted her to leave out many details.
APS sent attorney Penn Payne to question Lockhart. Lockhart said that Penn Payne's
questions were designed to make her feel as if she were betraying her friends and her school.
She minimized the cheating she saw in response to the pressure she felt from Penn Payne.
During the 2010 CRCT, Lockhart was assigned to monitor a kindergarten class and was
not allowed to proctor the CRCT. Lockhart believes she was placed in a kindergarten class in
retaliation for reporting the testing violation in 2009.
5. Demetrius Carroll (Proctor)
Demetrius Carroll heard that Lisa Terry, Wendy Ahmed, and Ingrid Abella cheated on
the CRCT. During the 2008 CRCT, Carroll witnessed a student copy from another student's
answer sheet in Abella' s classroom. He reported the violation to Abella. She did not seem
surprised and moved the student's desk a few inches away from the other student. Carroll asked
for a different proctoring assignment because of this incident and because he heard that Abella
prompted students on the CRCT. He reported the violation to then-testing coordinator Yolanda
Faison.
154
6. Tia Brown (Proctor)
Tia Brown saw Ingrid Abella approach many students' desks during the administration of
the 2009 CRCT, but she could not tell what Ingrid Abella was doing.
7. Caw anna Powers (Teacher)
Cawanna Powers heard that the third, fourth, and fifth grades erased and changed
students' answers on the 2009 CRCT.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Donald Clark (Principal)
Donald Clark denied any knowledge of cheating, and does not believe anyone cheated at
Humphries.
2. Christi Davis-Langston (Testing Coordinator)
Christi Davis-Langston testified that Lillian Lockhart did not report the cheating
described in Section IV(C)(4) until March of 2010. She immediately reported this to Principal
Clark, and prepared the statement included as Attachment A.
Davis-Langston said she was surprised at how well the students of Wendy Ahmed, Lisa
Terry, and Ingrid Abbella performed on the 2009 CRCT.
3. Wendy Ahmed (Teacher)
Wendy Ahmed denied making hand signals or otherwise prompting students on the 2009
CRCT. Principal Clark instructed her to write a statement detailing what she did and what
testing protocols she violated. She drafted a statement and turned it in to Principal Clark. She
heard nothing further until Penn Payne' s investigation.
4. Ingrid Abella (Teacher)
Ingrid Abella denied prompting students on the 2009 CRCT and denied that Demetrius
Carroll ever pointed out a student cheating in her classroom. She also denied moving that
student's desk a few inches away.
5. Lisa Terry (Teacher)
Lisa Terry admitted to cheating by prompting students during the administration of the
2009 CRCT.
155
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
After observing cheating, multiple proctors asked that they be removed from fourth grade
classrooms during the CRCT and the ITBS test. Based on this evidence, we conclude that
Christi Davis-Langston knew, or should have known, cheating occurred on the 2009 CRCT at
this school.
We conclude that Wendy Ahmed, Ingrid Abella, Lisa Terry, and Tonia Clark cheated on
the 2009 CRCT.
Based on the statistical evidence and evidence we have found at schools with similar
statistical data, we believe that other flagged teachers cheated. However, we lack sufficient
evidence to determine who engaged in this misconduct.
Lillian Lockhart reported to Principal Clark that she witnessed Wendy Ahmed cheating
on the 2009 CRCT. Instead of immediately reporting this, Clark attempted to dissuade Lockhart
from telling the truth by saying, "If you don't tell me anything, I won't have to report anything."
Principal Clark knew of cheating in 2010, if not before. He attempted to prevent Lockhart from
reporting Wendy Ahmed's cheating on the 2009 CRCT.
We further conclude that Principal Donald Clark failed in his ultimate responsibility for
testing activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper securing for the 2009
CRCT. It is our conclusion, from the statistical data and other evidence, that Principal Clark
failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing activities and test
security. This resulted in, and he is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously
reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
156
Statement of Events
I, Christi Davis-La ngston, the 2008-2009 testing coordinator for Humphries Elementary School, was
approached on the fourth day of the CRCT administration around 2r00p.m by Mrs. Liilian Lockhart, one
of the testing proctors. Mrs. Lockhart approached me with a concern saying she fett a little
uncomfortable with proctoring in the classroom to which she was assigned, i immediately informed her
that if an irregularity occurred, I needed to know so it could be reported to Mr. Clark and the testing
office. She paused for a moment and said, "No, just assign me another duty; I can handle it."
At that point, I thought it had something to do with some sort of tension between the two teachers. My
main concern was the importance of maintaining a nurturing environment for the students. Therefore,
without hesitation I immediately assigned her to a new duty for the remaining days of the CRCT
administration. I thought her concern was resolved after being placed as hall monitor. This concern was
not brought to my attention again until March 25, 2010.
Mr. Clark called a faculty meeting March 24, 2010, and informed us that the State would be coming to
our school to investigate the testing procedure at our school. He tofd us how proud he was of his staff
and that we had not dorse anything wrong, so we had nothing to be concerned about.
On March 25, 2010, Mrs. Lockhart came to my office and toid me that she went to Mr. Clark
immediately after the faculty meeting about the concern that she had last year while proctoring in Mrs.
Abella's 4th grade classroom. I asked her why did she not report this irregularity to Mr. Clark and me on
last year. She said she thought she could handle it, but her conscious kept bothering her.
While in my office, Mrs. Lockhart began telling me what she told Mr. Clark. She stated that she told Mr.
Clark that Mrs, Ahmed, a 4th grade science and social studies teacher, came into the classroom where
Mrs. Lockhart was proctoring to look in on her students to provide a little motivation while her students
were taking that portion of the test. She stated that she told Mr. Clark that Mrs. Ahmed started giving
answers out in front of the class. She said she told him that she pulled her aside and told her that she
could not do that. Mrs. Lockhart went on to say that she told him that she and Mrs. Ahmed had a
conversation about Mrs. Ahmed's actions, and she felt a little better. During the course of her telling me
what she told Mr. Clark, she said Mr. Clark asked her if she saw Mrs. Ahmed erase any answers and she
On Friday morning , March 26, 2010 , Mr. Clark called me into his office to share a concern that Mrs.
Lockhart had regarding proctoring in Mrs. Abella's class during CRCT testing 2008-2009. Mr. Clark
informed me that Mrs. Lockhart stated an irregularity was committed by Mrs. Ahmed during the 2008-
2009 testing session. At that point I informed him that Mrs. Lockhart only voiced a concern about
feeling uncomfortable while proctoring the CRCT and requested that she be moved. 1 granted her
request because, as I stated above, I thought there might be some tension between them, and I wanted
to preserve the testing environment for our students.
said, "No.
EXHIBIT
157
GLOSSARY
TERM
DEFINITION
APS
Atlanta Public Schools. An independent school system in the City
of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. Officially the "Atlanta
Independent School System."
AYP
Adequate Yearly Progress. Part of the federal No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, AYP is a measure of year-to-year student
achievement on statewide assessments. Schools, school districts,
and states must demonstrate a certain level of performance on
reading and/or language arts and mathematics assessments.
Schools that do not "meet AYP" for two consecutive years in the
same subject area are designated as schools in "Needs
Improvement."
Certified educator
Individuals trained in education who hold teaching, leadership,
service, technical specialist, or permit certification issued by the
PSC.
Classroom level data
CRCT erasure analysis data for specific teacher or homeroom,
including the subject tested, number of students, total number of
wrong to right erasures, and resulting standard deviation.
Confessed
Admitted to the truth of a charge or accusation.
Convocation
Annual celebration held by APS to recognize schools that have
met at least 70 percent of its performance targets. All APS
schools' faculty are expected to attend.
CRCT
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test. A standardized test
used by Georgia as the AYP assessment tool for elementary and
middle schools. Tests grades 1-8 in reading, English/language
arts, and math. In addition, grades 3-8 are tested in science and
social studies.
ELA
English /language arts
Fifth (5th) Amendment
The privilege against self-incrimination grounded in the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, providing that no person
will be compelled to be a witness against himself. In a criminal
case, if a defendant invokes the 5th Amendment and refuses to
testify, he may not be presumed guilty based on that refusal.
However, in a civil case, if a witness invokes the 5th Amendment
and refuses to answer questions concerning whether he or she
committed a particular act, "it creates an implied admission that a
truthful answer would tend to prove that the witness had
committed the act." Perez v. Atlanta Check Cashers, Inc., 302
Ga. App. 864, 870 (2010).
GOSA
Governor' s Office of Student Achievement. State agency which
provides accountability for Georgia's schools, pre-K through
postsecondary levels. The intent is to improve student
achievement and school completion in Georgia.
GTR ID#
Unique identification number assigned to each student.
158
IEP
Individualized Education Program. Free, appropriate, public
special education services which students with certain disabilities
or impairments are eligible to receive. An EEP is a written plan
developed by a team of teachers, other qualified personnel,
parents, guardians, and the student if appropriate.
Implicated
Shown to be also involved, usually in an incriminating manner.
LA
Language arts
MA
Mathematics
Makes the floor
At Convocation, schools that "make the floor" have met at least
70 percent of its targets. Those schools' faculty members are
seated in groups on the floor of the host venue, with the schools
meeting the highest percentage of its targets seated closest to the
stage. Schools that do not make the floor are seated in bleachers
or other remote seating.
Meets, exceeds
Refers to a measurement, usually expressed as a percentage, of
students who "met" or "exceeded" state standards in certain core
curriculum subjects (math, reading, English/language arts,
science, and social students) as measured by the CRCT.
Monitors
Persons assigned to a school to observe test administration
procedures; e.g. test distribution, test collection, storage of test
materials. Observes testing sites to see that schedules are being
followed, reports unusual activity.
out
APS Office of Internal Resolution/Employee Relations.
Processes and investigates complaints and reports of employee
wrongdoing and related employment matters.
Parapro/ paraprofe ssi onal
A person who may have less than professional-level certification,
who relates in role and function to a professional and does a
portion of the professional's job under the professional's
supervision, and whose decision-making authority is limited and
regulated by the professional. O.C.G.A. § 20-2-204. Georgia
paraprofessionals must be certified by the PSC.
PDP
Professional Development Plan. A plan developed and
implemented to correct perceived deficiencies in performance of
teachers and administrators, used to encourage and support
improvement in specific areas.
PEC
Program for Exceptional Children. Program offering specialized,
educational testing, evaluation and other services to eligible
children with certain disabilities or impairments. Each eligible
student must have an IEP.
Preponderance of the evidence
A standard of proof in civil cases. Evidence which is of greater
weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in
opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the
fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Proctors
Persons assigned to monitor classrooms or other specific areas
during testing; circulate to observe students and discourage
misconduct; assist test examiner to maintain testing security;
report unusual activity or irregularities.
159
Prompting
Assisting students during testing by use of verbal or nonverbal
cues. Examples include voice inflection, pointing to answers,
repetition or rephrasing of words or passages, physical cues,
movements, sounds, or signals meant to suggest or convey the
answer or encourage students to erase and change an answer.
PSC
Georgia Professional Standards Commission. A state agency
created "to set and apply high standards for the preparation,
certification, and continued licensing of Georgia public
educators." The PSC also handles the investigation and due
process of cases referred for disciplinary action.
RD
Reading
RPA
APS' Department of Research, Planning and Accountability.
Among other functions, RPA manages and oversees all testing
programs at APS.
Social promotion
The practice of promoting a student from one grade level to the
next on the basis of age rather than academic achievement.
SRTs
School Reform Teams. APS is organized into four (4)
geographically aligned areas comprised of elementary and middle
schools, each headed by an executive director. The structure is
meant to provide greater accountability and faster service to
schools and parents.
Standard deviation
A measure of the variability or dispersion of a distribution of
scores that represents the average difference between individual
scores and the mean. The more the scores cluster around the
mean, the smaller the standard deviation.
Student level data
CRCT erasure analysis data for each individual student for each
subject tested (RD, ELA, MA) showing the total number of
erasures made on that test, and the number of those erasures that
changed from wrong to right.
Stray marks
Pencil markings made on answer sheets that are visible outside of
the "bubble" or oval area where answer choices are to be marked.
Targets
An accountability program implemented by APS, consisting of
specific performance goals set for each school at the beginning of
the school year. The targets are based on quantifiable measures,
primarily CRCT test scores, and also include factors such as
student attendance, and enrollment in rigorous academic courses.
Testing accommodation
A change in a test administration that modifies how a student
takes or responds to the assessment. Accommodations are
designed to provide equity and serve to level the playing field for
students with disabilities and English Language Learners.
Totality of the evidence
Finding or conclusion based on all of the circumstances of a
particular case, rather than any one factor.
WTR
Wrong To Right = an incorrect answer choice is erased and
changed to a correct answer choice on an answer sheet, as
detected by erasure analysis using high speed optical scanners.
160
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 2
(School Summaries continued)
Dunbar Elementary School 161
D.H. Stanton Elementary School 168
Finch Elementary School 175
Coan Middle School 185
Dobbs Elementary School 191
Toomer Elementary School 204
Benteen Elementary School 207
Beecher Hills Elementary School 215
Fain Elementary School 219
Slater Elementary School 226
Thomasville Heights Elementary School 233
Fickett Elementary School 242
Hutchinson Elementary School 247
Capitol View Elementary School 251
Towns Elementary School 257
Blalock Elementary School 262
Whitefoord Elementary School 266
Boyd Elementary School 269
West Manor Elementary School 273
Turner Middle School 276
White Elementary School 280
Harper Archer Middle School 282
M. Agnes Jones Elementary School 296
Parkside Elementary School 303
Bethune Elementary School 305
Miles Elementary School 312
Grove Park Elementary School 315
Jackson Elementary School 318
Cleveland Elementary School 320
Alonzo A. Crim Open Campus High School 322
Benjamin S. Carson Preparatory Academy 323
C.W. Hill Elementary School 326
Adamsville Elementary School 327
Cascade Elementary School 328
Heritage Academy Elementary School 329
University Community Academy 330
Williams Elementary School 335
Herndon Elementary School 336
Bolton Academy Elementary School 337
Morningside Elementary School 339
Morris Brandon Elementary School 341
2009 vs. 2010 342
APS Percentage of Classes with Flagged WTR's Chart 345
Glossary 347
DUNBAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
403 Richardson Street SW Principal: Betty Greene SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30312 Testing Coordinator: Lera Middlebrooks
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Dunbar Elementary in 2009 and in other years.
Thirty-three teachers at this school were interviewed, some more than once. One teacher
confessed to cheating and described a schoolwide effort to systematically change students'
answers. Cheating at Dunbar is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, a confession
and witness testimony. Teachers altered student tests at the direction of the testing coordinator.
In 2009, Principal Betty Greene knew, or should have known, about the cheating and did nothing
to stop it. She failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
201)9
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
68.8
22.2
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
35
8
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
12(12)
4(3)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
10.6
4.3
High Flagged Standard Deviation
25.5
5.7
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
5.7
3.1
161
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Test
Standard
Deviation
CLEVELAND
1 RD
17.22939083
CLEVELAND
1 LA
16.99132645
CLEVELAND
1 MA
11.47314625
ROBINSON
1 RD
13.47719177
ROBINSON
1 LA
11.79453268
ROBINSON
1 MA
11.81766289
BUCKNER WEBB
2 RD
9.956665175
BUCKNER WEBB
2 LA
13.44381668
BUCKNER WEBB
2 MA
10.72902389
NEAL
2 RD
13.38424431
NEAL
2 LA
12.94238772
NEAL
2 MA
12.63677355
FINCH
3 RD
12.74161831
FINCH
3 LA
13.07106849
FINCH
3 MA
8.163582603
SIMS
3 RD
13.6532191
SIMS
3 LA
15.51816483
SIMS
3 MA
14.46837268
MERO
4 RD
15.29138298
MERO
4 LA
16.71096832
MERO
4 MA
13.65208524
JACKSON
4 RD
8.644315347
JACKSON
4 LA
15.37803113
JACKSON
4 MA
9.828594528
MORRIS
4 RD
8.305788944
MORRIS
4 LA
5.692897979
MORRIS
4 MA
16.63570708
BROWN
5 RD
19.00286597
BROWN
5 LA
19.20845225
BROWN
5 MA
19.24820175
MERO
5 RD
25.48075585
MERO
5 MA
17.29375013
IVEY
5 RD
24.52850503
IVEY
5 LA
19.77430582
IVEY
5 MA
23.00447453
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that educators at Dunbar cheated on
the 2009 CRCT.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 68.8% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only eight schools in APS with a higher percentage that year.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only one school had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Dunbar.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
from 68.8% to 22.2%.
Fourth, of the 35 flagged classrooms at Dunbar, all (100%) had standard deviations that
exceeded five and 29 (83% of the total number of flagged classrooms) classrooms exceeded ten
162
standard deviations. At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures
occurred without adult intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten
standard deviations the probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the
deviations from the state mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating
on a broad scale at Dunbar.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures 98.6% were produced by the flagged classrooms which accounted for only 68.6% of the
total classrooms.
Additionally, several witnesses state that teachers at Dunbar changed answers on the
2009 CRCT and probably in previous years as well.
B. Narrative
Testing Coordinator Lera Middlebrooks called teachers to the computer lab to "clean up"
the tests. They were called by grade level. One teacher confessed to changing answers in the
computer lab with other teachers of her grade level. Given the high standard deviations in all
grades at Dunbar, we find it likely that third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers altered test
documents as well. Lera Middlebrooks attempted to influence witnesses by threatening them
with harm if they told investigators about the erasing.
At least one teacher, Gloria Ivey, gave students the correct answers during the test.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Rose Neal (Teacher)
Rose Neal taught second grade and confessed to cheating on the 2009 CRCT. Lera
Middlebrooks approached Neal in 2009 and told her that she could "clean up" the tests if she
wanted. Neal believed Middlebrooks meant that she could erase and change answers. Neal
erased her students' answers in the computer lab with fellow first and second grade teachers
Pamela Cleveland, Shani Robinson, and Diane Webb Buckner. They all changed answers for
approximately thirty minutes. Middlebrooks did not change answers but she was in the room.
All grade levels received the same opportunity to cheat. Neal heard that three teachers
declined to cheat: Martina Jackson, Shawntye Finch, and Kimberly Brown Yontz. She believes
the others changed answers.
Cleveland, Ivey, Neal, and Middlebrooks discussed that if they did not say anything this
investigation could not find anything. They agreed to tell the same story. Middlebrooks
threatened the teachers that if they told investigators what happened she would place a lien on
their house or "get them at their car." She said, "If any bitch mentions my name . . .," implying
that she would do something violent to anyone who implicated her.
According to Neal, cheating occurred during the tenure of the prior principal Corliss
Davenport as well. Davenport had a team of teachers that would change answers in a back
office.
163
2. Jonathan Baggett (Teacher)
Jonathan Baggett started teaching at Dunbar in the 2009-2010 school year. Baggett soon
heard "What happens at Dunbar stays at Dunbar . . . You wouldn't believe what goes on here."
Baggett was a monitor during the 2010 CRCT. During the math portion each student in Ivey's
fifth grade class had a sheet of paper on their desk. Baggett and another hall monitor say they
believe there were math formulas on the paper.
During the social studies portion of the CRCT, Baggett saw suspicious activity.
Immediately prior to the administration of the test, the students had their social studies books
out. When Baggett walked into the classroom, he says he felt that the students knew they were
doing something wrong and looked guilty and uncomfortable. Baggett reported this activity to
the SRT monitor. The SRT monitor told him to tell Principal Greene. Principal Greene told
Baggett that since the children had their books out prior to the test, there was nothing improper.
During the 2010 ITBS, Baggett heard Ivey giving her students the answers to the test
questions.
3. Lashaine Blake (Teacher)
Lashaine Blake taught at Dunbar in 2004 and 2005. She witnessed former principal
Corliss Davenport point to the correct answers on the CRCT for students.
4. Tarita Dixon (Teacher)
In the 2004-2005 school year, Dixon tutored students. On one occasion, she asked the
students how they scored so well on the CRCT because she knew they had not studied the
material. Corliss Davenport filed an OIR complaint against Dixon for confronting students.
Davenport wrote the report in such a way that it did not reference test scores. Dixon believes
Ivey was the one who gave her tutorial students the answers to the CRCT.
Parents requested that their children be placed in Ivey's class because she would give
students the answers to the CRCT. Dixon believes that Ivey wrote the answers on the board.
5. Shawntye Finch (Teacher)
Teachers got together by grade level and erased stray marks and "cleaned up" tests with
the test books open. Five to six people were in the room at a time "cleaning up" the tests.
Teachers at all grade levels participated.
Students request to be tested by teacher Gloria Ivey. Finch thinks this is because Ivey
gives the students the answers.
6. Martina Jackson (Teacher)
Students request to be tested by Gloria Ivey. The students say that if Ivey tested them she
would help them on the CRCT.
164
7. Oreta Taylor (Proctor)
Oreta Taylor proctored during the 2009 CRCT. She told Lera Middlebrooks she did not
want to proctor Ivey's class in 2009 because she suspected Ivey gave students the answers.
In some year prior to 2009 she heard former principal Corliss Davenport and
Middlebrooks say to each other, "What are we going to do about these test scores?" She thought
this was suspicious.
Alan Gotlieb, a Teach for America teacher, told Taylor his students' answer sheets had
been altered and that he took pictures of the answer sheets. Gotlieb was at Dunbar when the
prior principal was there.
No teacher would report cheating because the procedures require the teachers to talk to
the testing coordinator who then reports to the principal. Teachers would not report misconduct
to the people who were cheating. Also, teachers were told they would be fired if they did not
improve test scores but would receive bonuses if test scores improved. Taylor feels that the
environment was ripe for cheating. She does not believe APS planned the cheating but that there
was a "culture of carelessness," and that there was pressure combined "with looking the other
way."
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Betty Greene (Principal)
Principal Greene testified that she did not cheat and does not have knowledge of
cheating. When asked to explain the statistical evidence, she stated that the classes at Dunbar are
very small and so it does not take much erasing for the standard deviations to be high.
Principal Greene testified under oath that she did not know that Middlebrooks directed
teachers to "clean up tests" or erase stray marks.
2. Gloria Ivey (Teacher)
Gloria Ivey denied knowledge of cheating. In 2009, Ivey had three subjects flagged with
standard deviations of 19, 23, and 24. Ivey's test results dropped in 2010, and when
investigators asked her to explain why the scores dropped, she blamed it on the children. Ivey
said her students in 2010 were not as bright as her students in 2009.
3. Tera Middlebrooks (Testing Coordinator)
Lera Middlebrooks was interviewed four times and denied any knowledge of cheating.
4. Corliss Davenport (former principal)
Corliss Davenport denied cheating while she was the principal of Dunbar. Three
particular teachers had CRCT score gains that made her suspicious, but she has no direct
knowledge of cheating.
165
Davenport was the principal of Dunbar from 2003 to 2007. Test scores steadily
improved while she was principal, but not at a level satisfactory to SRT-2 Director Michael Pitts.
Pitts asked Davenport sign a guaranty in 2006 stating that all of her Dunbar students would pass
the CRCT. She refused to sign the document and Pitts began sending harassing and threatening
e-mails regarding her dedication to the job. Davenport discussed the issue with Dr. Kathy
Augustine. Augustine told Davenport that Davenport and Pitts needed to work together and
understand each other better. It was after this that Pitts opened an investigation into a personal
bank account used by Davenport to deposit monies obtained from renting out the school. This
was a common practice within APS. Davenport opened a personal account because Pitts never
responded to her e-mails asking where she should put the money. Davenport accounted for all
proceeds that entered and exited the account and cooperated with the investigation. The APS
investigation stated that she did not break the law but used poor judgment and she should be
terminated. The termination was rescinded after Davenport's attorney spoke with APS.
Davenport was tired of fighting with Pitts and resigned on April 1, 2007.
E. Testimony of Additional Witnesses
1. Dunbar Student
A student at Dunbar told investigators about an altercation among the students over the
scores received by Ivey's students. Students in Brown's fifth grade class were upset because the
students in Ivey's class received awards for their CRCT scores. After an awards ceremony there
was a fight in the hallway between the two classes over the awards. The children in Brown's
class did not believe the students in Ivey's class were "smart enough" to win the awards.
F. Other Evidence
In June 2009, the Georgia Department of Education ("DOE") passed along an allegation
of cheating to APS. The allegation came to the DOE from the Toombs County Public School
System. According to the complaint, in March of 2009, Lera Middlebrooks gave a friend and
former colleague, Wanetta Jones, who was working in Toombs County, two Grade 5 prompts for
the 2009 Georgia Writing Assessment. Jones e-mailed educators in Toombs County. Jones' e-
mail stated: "A friend gave me these suggested topics for this year's writing assessment." The
topics were two of the three topics that appeared on the writing assessment administered in
March. Jones told investigators that she spoke to Middlebrooks about test topics on February 24
and February 28. She sent the e-mail to Toombs County teachers on March 1. The APS-hired
outside investigator determined that Dunbar received the writing test on February 26.
Middlebrooks' defense was that the two topics she suggested are topics she used during training
throughout the school year and that she told Jones the topics before the tests arrived at Dunbar.
Middlebrooks said she only talked to Jones on February 24 and that they did not talk on February
28. According to Middlebrooks, she could not have known the topics before the tests arrived at
Dunbar. The APS investigation concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that
Middlebrooks shared test topics with Jones.
166
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We find that Testing Coordinator Lera Middlebrooks directed and facilitated cheating on
the 2009 CRCT. Our conclusion is based on the statistical evidence, the testimony of Rose Neal,
and the Dunbar teachers who say tests were "cleaned up" in Middlebrooks' presence.
Rose Neal testified that the first and second grade teachers changed answers together.
She implicated the following first and second grade teachers: Pamela Cleveland, Shani
Robinson, and Diane Webb Buckner. Each of those teachers is flagged and we conclude that
they altered students' answer sheets.
Teachers in all five grades at Dunbar are flagged. Witnesses testified that teachers
"cleaned up" tests by grade level in the computer lab with Lera Middlebrooks. Neal confirmed
what many teachers suspected: that "cleaning up" meant erasing answers. Based on the
statistical evidence in third and fourth grades, we believe that other flagged teachers cheated in
the same manner. However, we lack sufficient evidence to determine which additional teachers
engaged in cheating.
There are three flagged teachers in the fifth grade with standard deviations that range
from 17.3 to 25.5. It is highly improbable that these wrong-to-right erasures occurred without
human intervention. One of the fifth grade teachers is Gloria Ivey. A student, Oreta Taylor,
Martina Jackson, Shawntye Finch, Neal and Jonathan Baggett all testified that Gloria Ivey
cheated on the CRCT and on the TTBS test. We conclude that Gloria Tvey cheated on the CRCT
in 2009 and in other years. We believe that other flagged fifth grade teachers cheated in the
same manner. However, we lack sufficient evidence to determine which additional teachers
cheated.
It is likely that Principal Greene knew teachers were cheating. The computer lab was on
the same hallway as Principal Greene's office and Neal stated that Principal Greene was in her
office when the teachers were erasing answers. The evidence further indicates that prior
principal Corliss Davenport cheated, or had knowledge of, cheating on the CRCT in the years
prior to 2009.
We further conclude that Principal Betty Greene failed in her ultimate responsibility for
testing activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper securing for the 2009
CRCT. It is our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation, that Principal Greene failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately
supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for,
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
In summary, we conclude that Rose Neal, Pamela Cleveland, Shani Robinson, Diane
Webb Buckner, Lera Middlebrooks, Gloria Ivey, Corliss Davenport and Betty Greene were
involved in, or knew about, cheating on the CRCT.
167
D.H. STANTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
970 Martin Street Principal: Willie Davenport SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Testing Coordinator: Francis Mack
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at D.H. Stanton Elementary in 2009. Forty -three people
were interviewed at D.H. Stanton, some more than once. Cheating at this school is evidenced by
a high number of flagged classrooms and witness testimony. Principal Willie Davenport
falsified attendance records and failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
58.3
17.6
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
28
9
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
13(10)
5(3)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
7.1
4.5
High Flagged Standard Deviation
16.4
6.8
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.2
3.3
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teachers
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
FREEMAN, S
1 LA
3.156218027
FREEMAN, S
1 MA
5.993240792
HENDERSON
1 LA
3.919355265
HENDERSON
1 MA
6.982042641
PEARSON
1 LA
4.742821759
PEARSON
1 MA
6.721165913
BEAN
2 LA
6.097889682
BEAN
2 MA
4.412189693
LONGLEY
2 LA
4.457594802
RAILEY
2 RD
3.323602389
RAILEY
2 LA
5.034765376
RAILEY
2 MA
13.35227113
CROWDER
3 RD
9.079333524
FREEMAN, J
3RD
10.59476171
FREEMAN, J
3 LA
4.001932283
FREEMAN, J
3 MA
3.51359273
MARTIN
3 RD
13.15889705
DRIGER
4 RD
5.654729531
DRIGER
4 LA
4.549254822
DRIGER
4 MA
4.596643495
HALL
4 RD
16.41395851
HALL
4 LA
13.83837352
HALL
4 MA
9.647934367
COWAN
5 LA
5.273507313
COWAN
5 MA
5.402169957
TURMAN
5 RD
7.739448899
TURMAN
5 LA
8.890014444
TURMAN
5 MA
8.224118733
168
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
Several facts point to the conclusion that D.H. Stanton Elementary School was not
managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported to the Georgia
Department of Education.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 58.3% for the 2009 CRCT. With state
monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped from 58.3% to 17.6%.
Second, of the 28 flagged classrooms at D.H. Stanton, 18 (64% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and five classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at D.H.
Stanton.
Third, is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at D.H. Stanton, 87% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
58.3%) of the total classrooms in the school.
Fourth, of the 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT, only two
schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms.
Fifth, there was a culture of cheating at D.H. Stanton. Chari Cowan testified that she was
instructed to cheat on the CRCT writing test. Many teachers spoke of conversations of cheating
at D.H. Stanton. If teachers heard these conversations, Principal Davenport probably did also,
yet she did nothing.
Last, test security was poor at D.H. Stanton. Testing Coordinator Francis Mack admitted
to leaving CRCT materials unattended in her unlocked office. Moreover, an eyewitness saw the
CRCT answer sheets spread across Mack's desk when she was out of the building.
B. Narrative
The attendance clerk, Carmen Smith, entered Francis Mack's office at Principal
Davenport's direction when Mack was absent and discovered tests and answer sheets spread out
on the desk and table. The clerk reported the discovery to Principal Davenport and was told to
retrieve the tests. By the time Smith returned to Mack's office to retrieve the test materials, she
found that the tests had been gathered up. Smith suspected that Davenport directed another
teacher, Valerie Hall, to remove the tests and answer sheets from Mack's office.
Carmen Smith confessed to altering attendance logs at the direction of Principal
Davenport, who threatened her with termination if she did not comply.
Principal Davenport created an atmosphere ripe for cheating by applying pressure on
teachers to improve test scores. Teachers were told exactly how many students in their class had
169
to pass the CRCT. Some teachers prompted students during testing, and some gave students the
answers.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Carmen Smith (Attendance Clerk)
Carmen Smith testified that Principal Davenport gave her the key to Francis Mack's
office and asked Smith to locate a form. Mack was absent from school that day. Carmen Smith
opened Francis Mack's office and saw test booklets and answer sheets spread out on Mack's
desk and on an adjacent table. Smith left immediately, reported her discovery to Principal
Davenport, and asked if she should retrieve the tests from Mack's office. Davenport told her to
retrieve the tests but did not appear concerned. Smith was stopped by someone in the hall on the
way to Mack's office. By the time she arrived at Mack's office, she found the desk and table
cleaned off and the test materials were gone. Carmen Smith suspected that Principal Davenport
sent someone to waylay her in the hallway and ordered Valerie Hall to collect the tests from
Mack's office. She believed it was Valerie Hall who retrieved the tests because Hall had a key
to Mack's office. Smith believed that Mack and Hall erased and changed answers with Principal
Davenport's knowledge. Smith stated that Mack "ran" the school.
Principal Davenport ordered her to change attendance logs in 2009 to mark certain
students "present" who were absent. Smith complied with Davenport's orders because she was
threatened with termination.
Teachers at D.H. Stanton, including Erica Turman, Valerie Hall, and Pamela Kirkland
Pearson prompted students with answers, changed students' answers, and gave answers to
students. Principal Davenport and Francis Mack pressured teachers about test scores and making
targets.
Principal Davenport was training Francis Mack to become principal at D.H. Stanton after
Davenport retired. Davenport and Mack were close and believed Davenport wanted Mack to
become principal to enable cheating to continue. She filed an OIR complaint against Davenport,
Mack, and SRT-2 Executive Director Michael Pitts to try to prevent Mack from becoming a
principal.
2. LaVerne Nash (Proctor)
LaVerne Nash was a proctor in 2009. During the 2009 CRCT testing week, Nash saw
test booklets on Francis Mack's desk. Mack's office was open, but she was not in her office.
Nash thought that was odd because the test booklets were to be secured at all times.
Although she lacked proof, Nash believed that Principal Davenport may have instructed
Mack to change test answers because Davenport was always trying to "make the floor." She
believed that Mack changed the tests with the help of Valerie Hall and Erica Turman because
they always stayed late after school during testing.
170
3. Chari Cowan (Teacher)
Chari Cowan was a fifth grade teacher in 2009. She recalled that in 2009, Francis Mack
called Cowan to her office and directed her to look at a document on her desk. Cowan
recognized the document as the "prompt" for the upcoming Fifth Grade Writing Test. She
refused to review the document further or to use the information on the document. Cowan felt
she was being "set up" by Mack because when she had previously questioned Mack and
Principal Davenport about how students were able to progress to the fifth grade or pass the
CRCT without being able to read, she was met with verbal abuse from them.
Cowan stated that at least half of her 2009 class of 16 boys could barely read but
somehow passed the summer CRCT and went on to sixth grade. When she asked them how they
had passed in previous grades, they told her that teachers Valerie Hall and Cassandra Driger had
given them the answers.
Pamela Kirkland Pearson told Cowan in 2009 that she overheard Francis Mack, Erica
Turman and Valerie Hall discussing how they were going to change the test scores. Pearson
stated that Tracy Jones-Salifu also overheard that conversation.
4. Tracy Jones-Sali fu (Math Coach)
Principal Davenport told Tracy Jones-Salifu that she would not have a job if the school
did not meet targets. Davenport said "what am I going to tell Mr. Pitts if you don't meet
targets?" Davenport was threatening and abusive to everyone except Francis Mack. It was
important to teachers and administrators that D.H Stanton "make the floor" at Convocation.
Jones-Salifu heard that third and fifth grade teachers gave answers to students and changed
wrong answers in 2009.
Jones-Salifu said that Pamela Kirkland Pearson used to be friends with Principal
Davenport, Francis Mack and Valerie Hall until Pearson "decided not to cheat anymore " Jones-
Salifu stated that Pearson came to her in tears reporting that Valerie Hall and Francis Mack told
Pearson that she needed to "buy into the plan" of how to cheat on the 2010 CRCT. Pearson was
ostracized when she refused to cheat.
Chari Cowan said that Francis Mack left the prompts for the Fifth Grade Writing Test on
the desk in her office for Cowan to use, but Cowan refused to take the information.
Jones-Salifu believed there was cheating in 2009-2010 by Mack and others accessing the
tests during the CRCT make-up test. Jones-Salifu said that Valerie Hall had a key to Mack's
office. Jones-Salifu stated that cheating may have occurred in 2009-2010 because Mack arranged
the schedule to allow friends to test each others' class. She stated that Erica Turman tested
Valerie Hall's class, and Michelle Martin tested Turman' s class.
5. Remika Smith (Reading Coach & Co-Testing Coordinator)
Remika Smith was the reading coach and the "co-test coordinator" with Francis Mack in
2009. Mack suggested cheating. Mack's friends participated in the cheating, including Valerie
Hall, Erica Turman, Cassandra Driger, and Pamela Kirkland Pearson. There had been a falling
out between Mack and Pearson. Pearson was reported to use voice inflection to prompt students.
171
Principal Davenport pressured the teachers to meet targets and told them that certain numbers of
students must pass.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Willie Davenport (Principal)
Willie Davenport stated that she never touched a test and was not aware that Francis
Mack did anything to the tests. She denied being told about tests and answer sheets spread out in
Mack's office. Davenport thought that Carmen Smith would have motivation to lie about her.
She thought that Carmen Smith had a rivalry with Francis Mack.
Principal Davenport thought that targets were realistic and stated that no one had ever
complained to her that they could not be achieved. She denied any allegations of cheating. She
did not understand how anyone could claim she was involved in cheating.
2. Francis Mack (Testing Coordinator)
We interviewed Francis Mack twice. She was represented by counsel. She became
Testing Coordinator for the 2009 CRCT, only one year after coming to D.H. Stanton. In her first
interview, Mack denied that she erased and changed answers on the CRCT. Mack was aware of
allegations that tests and answer sheets were seen in her office. She claimed that if there were
tests in her office it was because she had to fill in student identification information on the forms.
She usually performed this task in the media center, but claimed she decided to do it in her office
in 2009 because the media center was unavailable. Mack would never leave answer sheets
unattended in her office, and stated that if the answer sheets were in her office then she was in
the building. Then she admitted that she may have left early one day during test week. When
asked why someone would report seeing answer sheets spread out in her office, Mack stated that
Carmen Smith had lied about her in the past.
Mack stated that only she, Principal Davenport, and the custodian had keys to Mack's
office. It was important to Principal Davenport to "make the floor" and she told teachers to do
everything they could to help students pass the test as long as it was ethical. Mack denied she
was under pressure from Davenport to increase test scores. When asked whether she knew of
anyone cheating at D.H. Stanton, Mack voiced suspicions that first grade teachers may have
prompted students during the test. She believed the students were responsible for the high
erasures. She stated she would not benefit from changing answers because she was only the test
coordinator.
When Mack was interviewed a second time, she stated that Carmen Smith sometimes
went into her office in her absence and "probably" had a key; that Smith "distributed the keys,"
and had keys to "everything in the building." She claimed that Smith had a master key to the
building, locked the building at night and left around 6:30 p.m. Mack usually left school around
4:00 p.m. Valerie Hall and Mack became friends in 2009 and anyone who said Hall had a key to
Mack's office was lying.
She stated for the first time that her "co-test coordinator," Remika Smith, would have
been in her office when she was filling in student ID information on test forms, unless Smith was
in a meeting elsewhere. She could not recall whether Remika Smith was attending a meeting in
172
2009 when test sheets were in her office. Mack recalled filling in the student ID information on
the answer sheets with Remika Smith in the media center, not in her office. She claimed she
never had answer sheets in her office, but admitted she may have carried a few to her office
when she needed to look up information on her computer. Mack stated that she and Principal
Davenport are not friends but only have a working relationship. She disputed that Principal
Davenport had been grooming her to be the next principal of D.H. Stanton.
Carmen Smith filed a false OIR report against her after she confronted Smith about
reports from teachers that Smith was altering attendance records. Smith told her she was doing it
under orders but would not tell her who instructed her to change the records. Carmen Smith was
incompetent. She thought Carmen Smith was out to get her. She insisted that she would not
cheat for Principal Davenport. She reiterated that she had no motive to change answers. When
asked who had motive to change answers, she said if anyone changed answers it could be
Carmen Smith, Remika Smith, and Tracy Jones-Salifu. She felt that people were trying to
undermine her. Ultimately, she thought that the children were responsible for the erasures.
3. Valerie Hall (Teacher)
Valerie Hall denied changing answers, prompting students, providing answers, or doing
anything wrong. She was aware that people thought she had a key to Mack's office, and that she
and Mack changed answers. She admitted to being friends with Mack, but denied having a key
and changing answers.
Hall was flagged in all subjects. She stated that her students erased due to the testing
strategies she taught them. When she was confronted with data about her students' erasures, she
agreed that the numbers looked odd but had no explanation for the erasures other than her testing
strategies. Hall was aware that people thought she cheated during the 2010 CRCT as well, which
she found surprising.
4. Pamela Kirkland Pearson (Teacher)
Pamela Kirkland Pearson was a first grade teacher in 2009, and was flagged in language
arts and math. She denied changing answers, prompting students or giving answers to students.
Pearson received threatening phone calls from Davenport and Mack in the summer of 2010 in
which they cursed her and accused her of telling people that she had seen them with the tests.
Principal Davenport pressured teachers to improve their students' scores and wanted
"100%" from all first grade teachers. Davenport told each teacher how many students she
wanted to pass the test. Regarding our investigation, Principal Davenport and Francis Mack told
her to "be careful what you say. Your license is on the line."
Pearson believed there was cheating on the 2010 CRCT, and that it was accomplished in
part by teachers administering the test to their friends' classes.
5. Erica Turman (Teacher)
Erica Turman taught fifth grade in 2009. Turman did not believe Mack would change
answers. She claimed she would never erase answers at Mack's request and questioned why
people claimed they were friends.
173
Turman was flagged in all subjects. She did not recall her students erasing as much as
the data indicated but denied she had cheated. Some students claimed that Turman gave them
answers to the test in 2010, but Turman denied the allegations.
She said in APS, pressure came "from the top." She stated that if you can't "produce
scores" you might be moved from a critical grade to another one.
Turman was interviewed by Stan Williams from the Office of Internal Resolution (OER)
about cheating complaints after we instructed APS to stop further investigations into the CRCT
allegations. Turman stated that OER was convinced she had cheated and that Williams
interviewed her for three to four hours and shouted at her.
6. Cassandra Driger (Teacher)
Cassandra Driger taught fourth grade in 2009. She was flagged in all subjects, but denied
cheating. She had no explanation for the erasures in her class. She stated that there was a lot of
pressure to have students pass the CRCT. Targets were considered a "big deal" because there
was money associated with meeting them. Driger was transferred from fourth grade to second
grade in August 2010, due to low test scores.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
Principal Davenport directed Carmen Smith to falsify attendance records.
We also conclude that Principal Davenport pressured teachers to meet targets and raise
test scores. She created an environment for cheating by exerting pressure on teachers to ensure
that specific numbers of students passed the test. When a witness discovered tests and answer
sheets spread out in Mack's office, Davenport attempted to prevent the witness from retrieving
the materials. We conclude that Principal Willie Davenport directed and facilitated cheating on
the CRCT and Testing Coordinator Francis Mack orchestrated a scheme to erase and change
student answer sheets. Some teachers provided answers to students in 2009 and other years.
We conclude that Principal Willie Davenport failed in her ultimate responsibility for
testing activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for, the 2009
CRCT. It is our conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation that Principal Davenport failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately
supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for,
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
174
FINCH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1114 Avon Avenue Principal: Dr. Linda Paden SRT-1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, Georgia 30310 Testing Coordinator: Sheila Maxwell
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Finch Elementary in 2009. Twenty -five people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. Three teachers confessed to cheating.
Cheating at Finch is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, confessions, and witness
testimony. Principal Linda Paden failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
48
10.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
36
8
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
14(12)
5(2)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
6.4
4.3
High Flagged Standard Deviation
12.5
6.9
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3
3.3
175
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
FLORENCE
1 RD
8.846474026
FLORENCE
1 LA
10.19554239
FLORENCE
1 MA
5.910475918
WILLIAMS
1 RD
4.998094435
WILLIAMS
1 LA
7.957153707
WILLIAMS
1 MA
5.462605321
COLLIER
2 RD
4.646391888
COLLIER
2 LA
7.56492777
COLLIER
2 MA
11.29655878
DANIEL
2 RD
3.675444286
DANIEL
2 LA
3.822209124
DANIEL
2 MA
5.179953847
MAY
2 RD
3.162734205
MAY
2 MA
4.706895666
SHORTER
2 RD
8.856146833
SHORTER
2 LA
4.839756297
SHORTER
2 MA
6.943705203
THOMAS WILSON
2 RD
8.450655498
THOMAS WILSON
2 LA
4.932053882
THOMAS WILSON
2 MA
11.26949673
GATES
3RD
6.534536821
JACKSON
3RD
7.877656967
JACKSON
3 LA
5.137420301
SIMS
3 RD
4.136286631
SIMS
3 LA
3.011752305
SIMS
3 MA
4.721896378
FULLER
4 RD
7.710450651
FULLER
4 LA
4.546424278
FULLER
4 MA
4.27940952
RICHARDS
4 RD
3.5223442
RICHARDS
4 LA
4.121365048
RICHARDS
4 MA
4.807330648
WOODS
4 RD
6.822352397
SCOTT
5 RD
12.47303933
SCOTT
5 LA
8.177833943
SCOTT
5 MA
8.846474026
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Finch Elementary School was
not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 48% for the 2009 CRCT. With state
monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped significantly, from 48%
to 10.3%.
Second, of the 36 flagged classrooms at Finch, 20 (55% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and four classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at Finch.
176
Third is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Finch, 73% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 48% of
the total classrooms in the school.
Finally, Principal Paden expected her teachers to cheat. She allowed teachers to take
their CRCT materials to their classrooms after the testing period. Three teachers confessed to
cheating. Principal Paden knew of and directed cheating on the 2009 CRCT at Finch Elementary
School.
B. Narrative
Three teachers confessed to cheating. Two teachers pointed to answers, re-read
questions, or used other cues to ensure their students chose correct answers. One teacher
confessed to erasing and changing answers in the principal's conference room where teachers
were gathered by grade levels to erase stray marks. The testing coordinator, Sheila Maxwell,
supervised the room where stray marks were erased but claimed to be too busy to notice what
teachers were actually erasing.
Principal Linda Paden was on a PDP and told teachers if she was on a PDP, they would
also be on a PDP. Teachers who cheated did so out of fear of negative evaluations or job loss if
they failed to improve test scores. Principal Paden told them, "Walmart's hiring." The pressure
exerted by Principal Paden on her staff to meet targets, raise test scores, and "push the children"
created an environment conducive to cheating.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Ashley Daniel (Teacher)
Ashley Daniel confessed to cheating in 2009. She was flagged for high wrong-to-right
erasures in all subjects. Teachers were called to the principal's conference room by grade level
for the purpose of erasing stray marks. All second grade teachers were present. In her first
interview she stated that she erased stray marks and darkened in circles if they were light. If two
answers were marked and she could tell which one was darker, she would erase the lighter
colored answer. After Daniel was informed that the evidence indicated she was responsible for
changing answers she initially admitted responsibility for the erasures, but then stated she "really
did not change" answers. Daniel repeatedly confessed and recanted.
At her second interview, Daniel admitted she changed answers during the time that stray
marks were being erased in the conference room. She believed that other teachers also changed
answers. The second grade teachers, and first grade teachers Joya Florence, Richanda Williams,
and Curtis Collier were present.
Daniel said that there were several reasons teachers would cheat. Principal Paden linked
test scores to evaluations, and told Daniel that she needed better scores to get a better evaluation.
Scores were posted at faculty meetings and teachers were singled out in front of their colleagues.
Principal Paden threatened teachers in a meeting, and told them if she was going to be on a PDP,
then they should be on one also. Principal Paden made threatening statements, like "The door
swings both ways," and "Walmart is hiring."
177
2. Danielle Jackson (Teacher)
Danielle Jackson confessed to cheating on the CRCT by prompting her students to
change answers from wrong to right. She gave extra attention to students having difficulty
during the test. For example, she pointed to questions and nodded her head if an answer was
wrong, and sometimes reiterated a learning point such as "you know I taught you about
pronouns. . ." If a student finished a section too quickly, she instructed the student to look at the
questions again, and sometimes encouraged them to erase the answers if she noticed they were
wrong. She believed her actions resulted in students changing answers from wrong to right.
Jackson recalled that when she turned in her tests at the end of the day she was asked by
either Maxwell or Paden, on more than one occasion, if she needed her tests back after lunch.
She did not understand why she would need her tests back after lunch and said no. She later
learned that first and second grade teachers were allowed to test under a different schedule that
permitted testing before and after lunch. Jackson taught third grade. She heard that first and
second grade teachers spent a long time in the conference room "erasing stray marks," and stated
that it became a joke around the school.
She was surprised that two or three students who did not read well passed the CRCT.
There was great pressure on teachers to have their students get high test scores. Principal
Paden publicized teachers' scores in faculty meetings and if a teacher did not do well they would
be told to seek the advice of a teacher with higher scores, a practice which teachers found
humiliating. Principal Paden told Jackson on the first day of testing that SRT-1 Executive
Director Sharon Davis- Williams was watching Jackson and knew that her test scores were low.
3. Richanda Williams (Teacher)
Richanda Williams confessed to prompting her students to erase and change answers.
She read the question twice to her students, walked by their desks, and if she saw several
students marking the wrong answer she read the question a third time. She stated that if her
"smarter students" were marking wrong answers, then she knew the others were missing the
answer as well. Williams claimed that she did not use voice inflection, but raised her voice and
told the class to "stay focused."
Williams stated that she and other teachers were called by grade level to erase stray
marks, but denied changing any answers. Williams admitted that if the answer was not
completely bubbled in they would fill in the rest. She understood that to be "standard procedure,"
but did not know where she got that understanding. If an answer was not sufficiently erased, she
would erase it more completely. Williams estimated she was in the room about 30 minutes.
Principal Paden came in and out of the conference room while tests were being "cleaned."
Williams stated that there was a lot of pressure at staff meetings to meet targets.
Principal Paden stressed that they had to "move the children" along.
178
4. Sharona Thomas-Wilson (Teacher)
Sharona Thomas-Wilson denied cheating and had no explanation for the high number of
wrong-to-right erasures in her class. She stated that during the 2009 CRCT, her class finished
early on the first day so she tried to turn in her tests. Principal Paden offered to let her take the
tests back to her class and give the students more time. Thomas-Wilson declined and turned in
her test materials. Teachers Melissa May and Curtis Collier also finished early and were present
during the exchange. Principal Paden threatened to write them up for creating a testing
irregularity by finishing the test early. Testing Coordinator Sheila Maxwell communicated the
same message later. On the second day, Principal Paden instructed Thomas-Wilson to test her
students from 9:00-10:30 a.m. only on section one of the test, then stop for lunch and turn in the
tests. The schedule change allowed the students an extra 30 minutes to complete section one.
After lunch the students were to start section two of the test and work until they were finished.
Thomas-Wilson had to follow the altered schedule for days two and three of testing.
The teachers cleaned stray marks in the conference room after testing. Thomas-Wilson
recalled being in the room "about an hour" and stated that other second grade teachers were in
the room, including Curtis Collier. She believed the only reason Collier might have denied being
in the room was because it might be viewed as an opportunity to erase answers. Principal Paden
and Maxwell were present when the teachers entered the room, but Principal Paden left shortly
thereafter. Maxwell entered and exited the room periodically, leaving the teachers alone with the
tests.
Thomas-Wilson testified that when she started at Finch she inflated students' grades to
C's because Principal Paden made it known that she did not want students to receive D's or F's.
Later she was told by Paden that she needed to change the C's to even higher grades because a C
implied that Finch was average. Thomas-Wilson felt she could not make the grade higher
because she had already given C's to some students who deserved D's or F's.
In 2009, a student told Thomas-Wilson that a teacher who is no longer at Finch provided
answers during a previous CRCT. Thomas- Wilson had questioned the student about his decline
in performance between first and second grade, which she found strange because the material
was basically the same. The student said his previous teacher gave the student answers and told
classmates to "look on each others tests." Thomas- Wilson said that she had a number of students
in the past who could not read but passed the CRCT.
5. Veatris Wright (Teacher)
Veatris Wright was a third grade teacher in 2009. Wright now teaches second grade
because she was demoted for having low test scores on the 2009 CRCT. She said that she felt a
lot of pressure but she did not cheat. When the 2009 CRCT scores came back, Principal Paden
called Wright to her office and told her that her scores were the worst on her grade level. Wright
explained that she had a tough class that year and had a problem with some of the girls being
bullies. Principal Paden told her that SRT-1 Executive Director Davis-Williams "didn't want to
hear any of that." She was told that her scores were not low enough to be placed on a PDP, but if
the scale should change Wright would be notified. She and other teachers were threatened on
more than one occasion with a PDP for low test scores. Principal Paden said she knew that
179
Wright was being considered for tenure and that her scores had better be good. One week into
the summer, Principal Paden called Wright and told her she was being moved back a grade.
Wright knew it was due to low test scores. Another teacher was also moved back a grade for low
scores.
Wright stated that teachers were called to the conference room at the end of testing to
erase stray marks. She did not cheat or observe anyone else cheating. She was asked on more
than one occasion by Principal Paden and Testing Coordinator Sheila Maxwell if she needed her
tests back after lunch. Wright heard that answers were being changed, but had no specific
information.
Veatris Wright stated that every year she had one or two students coming into her class
who could not read but who had exceeded standards on the prior year's CRCT.
D. Testimony of Additional Witnesses
1. Curtis Collier (Teacher)
Curtis Collier attempted to turn in his test materials early but was told to take them back
to his class because it was "too early." He did not re-distribute the tests to the students, he just
returned the tests later. Collier denied entering the room when stray marks were being erased.
2. Melissa May (Teacher)
Melissa May denied cheating on the CRCT. She stated that during the 2009 CRCT she,
Thomas-Wilson and Collier, attempted to turn in their test materials and were told it was "too
early" and they should take the tests back to their classrooms. May went back to her room and
placed the materials on a table. She recalled that teachers erased stray marks in the conference
room and that Collier, Thomas-Wilson, Tyrone Shorter and Ashley Daniel were present. May
stayed "about ten minutes" and Collier finished before her and left.
Principal Paden told May that teachers would be put on a PDP if their test scores were
low.
3. Joya Florence (Teacher)
Joya Florence stated that teachers were called to the conference room by grade level to
erase stray marks. She became distressed when we informed her that there seemed to be a
correlation between schools where groups get together to erase stray marks and schools where
systematic cheating occurred. However, she denied changing answers or seeing others change
answers. When Florence was told in a follow-up interview that the evidence suggested she had
changed answers on her students' tests, she became emotional. She stated that she had been
dealing with a difficult student all day and wanted to go home.
4. Demiris Gates (Teacher)
Demiris Gates denied cheating or having knowledge of cheating. Teachers were called to
the conference room by grade level to erase stray marks. APS created an environment regarding
180
test scores in which teachers "must make it happen." Students must pass the test and scores must
keep rising. He knew that Principal Paden was on a PDP for low test scores. Gates was
surprised one of his students passed the CRCT.
5. Tyrone Shorter (Teacher)
Tyrone Shorter recalled that Collier and May tried to turn in their tests early but were not
allowed to do so by Sheila Maxwell. Shorter stated that at the end of testing the teachers were
called by grade level to erase stray marks. He acknowledged that he was in the room when stray
marks were erased but denied making any erasures, even when told that others contradicted this
statement. Shorter stated that Maxwell asked him, when he was leaving the room, if he had
"checked the test." He told her yes, but she repeated the question two more times. Shorter
believed that she was trying to convince him to change answers. Principal Paden and Maxwell
did not get along because Principal Paden wanted things done a certain way, and Maxwell tried
to "uphold proper testing procedures."
Shorter did not get along with Principal Paden because after he asked questions in faculty
meetings, she transferred him from fourth to second grade for "challenging her authority." When
contacted for a follow-up interview, Shorter stated he was concerned about the consequences of
being truthful, and was concerned that his answers might jeopardize his teaching certificate.
Shorter told us he wanted to consult his attorney before speaking again to us. When Shorter
appeared with counsel at a subsequent interview, he stated that he had already answered
questions and refused to answer any more.
6. Walda Jefferson (Math Coach)
Walda Jefferson was the math coach in 2009. When shown the list of flagged teachers,
she stated she was not surprised at many of the names on the list. She thought the test scores
were high and that some students were passing the math portion when they clearly did not grasp
the fundamentals and scored low on pretests. It was obvious someone cheated because the test
scores did not reflect the ability of the students. She had students transfer in from Gideons,
Peyton Forest, Venetian Hills and other schools who exceeded standards on the math portion of
the CRCT but could not perform single-digit addition.
7. Lincoln Woods (Teacher)
Lincoln Woods denied any knowledge of cheating and stated that he did not go to the
conference room to erase stray marks. He stated he did not feel pressure for his students to do
well on the CRCT.
8. Charlotte Scott (Teacher)
Charlotte Scott denied cheating. Scott had no explanation for her wrong-to-right
erasures.
181
E. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Sheila Maxwell (Testing Coordinator)
Sheila Maxwell was the Testing Coordinator at Finch in 2009. She never witnessed
cheating in classrooms and did not know when it could possibly occur. People would not cheat
around her because they knew that she would report it. She did not recall asking teachers if they
needed more time or if Principal Paden asked teachers either. She did not know why anyone
would make that statement and speculated that teachers may have been confused.
Maxwell said she was a "stickler" for protocol and procedure. Erasing stray marks was a
common procedure and mandated by the state. It was her job to supervise that procedure. She
called teachers down to the principal's conference room by grade level after the testing was
completed. The tests were stacked on the table and labeled with the appropriate teacher's name.
Teachers were directed to their stack, given a pencil, and told to "clean the tests." She said that
the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers only had the answer sheets when erasing; the test
booklets were in a separate stack.
Maxwell admitted it was possible for a teacher to see that two answers were bubbled in
and erase the lighter one if it appeared that it had not been completely erased. She said it was
important to make sure that stray marks were erased completely so that they could not be picked
up by the machine that grades the tests. After stressing the importance of that procedure,
Maxwell claimed that she never checked the tests to make sure that stray marks were actually
erased. She insisted that teachers were simply asked to clean the tests; whether they actually did
so was up to them. She stated that she did not have time to sit and watch the teachers while they
erased, because she was too busy packing tests and filling out paperwork at the side of the room.
Her focus, she said, was to ensure that all the test materials were prepared and packed. She
would glance over and see that teachers had pencils and were erasing. Principal Paden was "in
and out of the room" while stray marks were being erased.
Maxwell could not recall how long teachers were in the room, but thought they spent
only eight to 12 minutes erasing stray marks. She denied that any teacher spent an hour erasing
stray marks. She did not recall any teacher refusing to report to the room to erase stray marks.
She recalled that all teachers reported to the conference room.
Maxwell and Principal Paden had professional difficulties. She filed a complaint with
OIR against Principal Paden, alleging that Paden had pressured her to sign a form attesting that
the CRCT materials were stored in the vault, which Maxwell stated was not true. Paden was
known to lie. Maxwell felt that she was ostracized for standing up to Principal Paden and filing
a complaint. She was put on a PDP by Principal Paden. She recalled Paden stating, "If I'm on a
PDP, you're going to be on a PDP," and "Walmart is hiring." It was important to Principal
Paden to meet targets and "make the floor."
2. Linda Paden (Principal)
We interviewed Linda Paden two times and she was represented by counsel. Principal
Paden stated she was not aware of cheating and that no reports of cheating had been brought to
her attention. Regarding Testing Coordinator Sheila Maxwell's allegations in the OIR
182
complaint, Principal Paden claimed that Maxwell was mistaken that the test materials were not
stored in the school vault. Principal Paden explained that in 2009, she decided "for some reason"
to have the test materials placed in the school vault upon delivery to the school, instead of the
conference room where they were usually kept. She said that the next day they were moved to
the conference room, but Maxwell was probably not aware they were originally in the vault. The
only reason she asked Maxwell to sign the form certifying the tests were placed into the vault
when received at Finch was because SRT-1 Executive Director Davis-Williams wanted her
signature in addition to the principal's. Principal Paden denied "pressuring" Maxwell to sign the
form.
Principal Paden admitted that she had been placed on a PDP more than once by Davis-
Williams for not meeting targets. She is presently on a PDP. She would not say if she felt
pressure to meet targets. She denied pressuring teachers to meet targets, stating that the pressure
was just their "perception." Her teachers knew she was on a PDP. She denied threatening to put
teachers on PDPs for not meeting targets. She admitted telling teachers she "may" have to put
them on PDP's but claimed she never put anyone on one. She denied telling teachers that
"Walmart is hiring." She recalled somebody else saying that. Paden denied ever telling a
teacher to change a grade.
When asked why teachers were offered more time with the tests and told they could not
turn them in early, Principal Paden speculated that teachers who finished early may have been
sent back to their class if the testing coordinator had not gotten to the conference room to receive
the tests. She admitted coming in and out of the conference room while stray marks were erased
from answer sheets by teachers. She could not recall if teachers had the test booklets in addition
to the answer sheets.
F. Other Evidence
• In 2007-2008, Finch met AYP and received the APS 2008 Bronze Award
for Greatest Gain in Percentage of Students Meeting and Exceeding
Standards.
• In 2008-2009, Finch met AYP and was a "distinguished school."
• In 2009-2010, Finch did not meet AYP or district targets.
• Principal Linda Paden was consistently on PDPs for low test scores and
not meeting targets. She could not recall how often her targets had been
met.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that cheating occurred on the 2009 CRCT at Finch. Danielle Jackson,
Richanda Williams, and Ashley Daniel confessed to cheating. Daniel believes that other
teachers were also erasing answers. Other teachers denied cheating; however, based upon the
statistical improbability of the erasures in their classrooms and the inconsistent testimony
183
provided by them, we conclude that Sharona Thomas- Wilson, Curtis Collier, Joya Florence, and
Tyrone Shorter also cheated.
While there is no evidence that Testing Coordinator Sheila Maxwell or Principal Paden
erased and changed students' answers themselves, Maxwell's actions facilitated cheating when
the tests were in her custody. Principal Paden and Sheila Maxwell improperly offered teachers
more time with the tests and refused to allow those who finished testing early to turn in the tests,
which allowed time to cheat. Maxwell was adamant that stray marks had to be cleared from the
tests, yet backed away from responsibility for verifying that it had been done. She seemed to
recall that all teachers reported to the conference room, yet claimed not to notice what they were
erasing in her presence. Her lack of supervision and apparent willingness to turn a blind eye
facilitated cheating by at least one teacher who confessed that she erased in the presence of her
peers.
It is our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence that Principal Paden
failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing activities and test
security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously
reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
184
COAN MIDDLE SCHOOL
1550 Hosea L. Williams Dr. NE Principal: Dr. Andre Williams SRT-3 Executive Director: Dr. Gloria Patterson
Atlanta, GA 303 17- 1902 Testing Coordinator: Wayne Campbell
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Coan Middle in 2009. Twenty-one people were
interviewed at Coan, some more than once. One teacher confessed to cheating. Cheating at
Coan is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, a confession, and witness testimony.
Principal Andre Williams failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2011)
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
31.4
3.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
16
2
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
8(4)
2
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
18.1
3.2
High Flagged Standard Deviation
33
3.2
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
10.8
3.2
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
BARNETT
6 RD
23.01393141
BARNETT
6 LA
20.28747089
BARNETT
6 MA
23.00039919
HAWK
6 MA
24.79023205
SOUTHALL
6 MA
33.06486997
STUCKEY
6 RD
10.81191503
STUCKEY
6 LA
11.28838549
STUCKEY
6 MA
12.52164359
I. ARE
7 MA
23.74792961
TOLIVER
7 MA
28.63176724
USHRY
7 RD
14.46301261
USHRY
7 LA
13.28241752
USHRY
7 MA
15.17633931
WALLER
8 RD
12.51678332
WALLER
8 LA
11.5333268
WALLER
8 MA
11.74704368
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several significant facts which point to the conclusion that Coan Middle School
was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
185
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 3 1 .4% for the 2009 CRCT. With state
monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped significantly from
31.4% to 3.3%.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the State of Georgia taking the
2009 CRCT, only 21 schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Coan Middle
School.
Third, of the 16 flagged classrooms at Coan, all 16 had standard deviations that exceeded
ten. At ten standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without
adult intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the
deviations from the state mean were, for all of the classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on
a broad scale at Coan Middle School.
Fourth, is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures 74% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 31.4% of the
total classrooms in the school.
Finally, Principal Andre Williams created an environment that encouraged cheating. He
threatened teachers with PDPs if CRCT scores did not improve. Classroom doors were closed
during testing, giving teachers privacy needed to cheat. He allowed teachers to instruct the
parents of low-performing students to keep their children home from school during CRCT
testing so teachers could cheat for those students.
B. Narrative
In 2009, special education teachers at Coan cheated during the administration of the
CRCT by using voice inflection, pointing out key words, or teaching the CRCT as if it were a
class lesson. Teachers also improperly allowed students additional time to complete the CRCT.
Teachers cheated because they feared job loss or being placed on a PDP for low test scores.
Coan students struggled in math and Principal Andre Williams constantly emphasized
improving math scores. Ron Washington, who served as testing coordinator while Dr. Wayne
Campbell was on leave, was the lead special education teacher. Washington instructed at least
one teacher to call parents and tell them to keep their child at home during testing or to bring
them later in the day for makeup testing. These students were typically lower performing
students, but not those with testing accommodations. The teacher explained to the parents that
the children could not test with his or her regular class due to "behavioral issues." A teacher
observed Washington, Dr. Campbell, and Principal Williams' cars at the school late one evening
during test week.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Alicia Waller (Teacher)
Alicia Waller stated that Washington, the lead special education teacher and the acting
test coordinator for the first two days of the 2009 CRCT testing period, instructed her to call
parents of children she feared would perform poorly, and tell them to either keep their child
186
home from school during testing or to send them to school late. Washington told Waller that she
should test these "late" or "absent" students in a small group, make-up session outside of their
regular class. Waller tested those students in a small group on multiple occasions.
Waller saw Washington's, Principal Williams' and Testing Coordinator Campbell's
vehicles at the school late one evening during test week.
Test booklets and answer documents remained in the school long after testing ended.
During one year, Waller was told to give a student a test after make-up testing was already over.
Principal Williams told Waller to make sure that all students passed the test. Waller
confessed to using voice inflection, pointing out key words and using strategic pauses to prompt
her students to answer correctly. When one particular student did not pick up on her voice
inflection, Waller admitted helping out that student more than the others. Waller could prompt
students in this way, since classroom doors remained closed during testing. Waller also admitted
to allowing students more time than was allotted for the test because no one monitored the time.
Waller witnessed another special education teacher, Johnson Stuckey, prompting his
students to the right answers on the CRCT. Stuckey sat down at a table with his students and
administered the CRCT as if it were a lesson. Stuckey told Waller that he was doing this
because Principal Williams wanted the students to pass and that they had to do this in order to
make AYP.
Waller said Principal Williams put tremendous pressure on the teachers. He threatened
teachers constantly with PDPs, and people who did not comply with administrators' wishes were
transferred to other schools. Waller lived in fear every year that her contract would not be
renewed.
2. Cynthia Ushry (Teacher)
Cynthia Ushry stated she was not at school during testing in 2008-2009 because she was
in the hospital. She could not understand how her class was flagged if she was not at the school.
Ushry heard that Principal Williams solicited people to stay at school after hours and help
change the tests. According to Ushry, Ron Washington and Principal Williams were very close.
Ushry recalled parents coming to the school complaining about being told to keep their children
home during the CRCT.
3. Francine Greer (Assistant Principal)
Francine Greer said Principal Williams put pressure on teachers to make targets. Greer
wondered how certain schools were able to make targets and she noticed that, over time, more
and more schools seemed to be hitting targets. She voiced concerns that the closet in Dr.
Campbell's office where the tests were stored was accessible by a master key. She raised this
question during an administrative meeting where Williams, Campbell and Washington were
present. Greer felt that they did not take her concerns seriously, but eventually the lock was re-
keyed. Greer denied that any students not entitled to special testing accommodation were tested
in small groups. She has no knowledge of administrators telling parents to keep their children
home during test week.
187
4. Teidra Yvetta Hutchings-Hoskins (Teacher)
Teidra Yvetta Hutchings-Hoskins recalled teaching eighth grade students who could
hardly read, but ended up scoring 100% on the math portion of the CRCT. Because of this type
of inconsistency between student abilities and their test scores, Hoskins questioned what was
occurring at Coan.
5. Deborah Mills (Teacher)
Deborah Mills taught sixth through eighth grade language arts, reading and social studies
at Coan from 1994 until 2005. When Principal Williams arrived at Coan, Mills became
uncomfortable with changes at the school. She and other teachers were amazed by the
performance of some students on the CRCT, as their high scores did not seem to match their low
performance in the classroom. Word spread around the school that administrators changed the
students' answer documents. Principal Williams heavily emphasized making AYP and meeting
targets.
6. Quentin Southall (Teacher)
Quentin Southall reported that Principal Williams would place teachers on a PDP for low
test scores. Southall was surprised by the test scores of some of the special education students in
that their scores were much higher than their apparent abilities in the classroom. Southall heard
that Principal Williams asked a teacher, Frances Warner, to stay after school one day to change
students' CRCT answer sheets.
7. Deborah McRae (Teacher)
Deborah McRae stated that while she worked at Coan, Principal Williams and Dr.
Campbell asked her to promote students to the next grade who did not actually pass. She refused
to do so. Principal Williams advised McRae that if she wanted to remain at Coan, she needed to
be more compliant. McRae verbally reported her concerns to APS' Office of Internal Resolution
(OIR), but instead of support, OIR told McRae to respect the authority of Principal Williams.
McRae stated she also emailed Dr. Beverly Hall and Dr. Kathy Augustine, but never received a
response. McRae advised that Principal Williams told Waller to contact several parents of her
students and tell them to keep their child at home during CRCT testing. Williams told Waller to
tell parents the reason their child had to stay home was due to behavioral issues. These students
were lower performing and not likely pass to the CRCT. McRae stated that Waller complied
with Williams' instruction and that ultimately some parents came to the school and complained.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Dr. Andre Williams (Principal)
Principal Williams previously worked in the New York school system where Dr. Beverly
Hall recruited him to come to Atlanta. Williams became Principal at Coan in 2005, but was
terminated in 2009.
188
Principal Williams denied cheating. He told investigators he had no motive to cheat
because at the time of the 2009 CRCT, he had already accepted another job in another district.
However, Williams stated that "cheating is so intertwined in Atlanta Public Schools." It is "such
a part of what the culture is all about." Everyone knows that cheating is going on. Principals
joke about cheating at their meetings. Everyone knows about the cheating at Parks. The APS
Administration conducted "investigations" into cheating over the years, but nothing ever
happened.
In 2006, after his first year at APS, Principal Williams claimed that he filed an OIR
complaint about the test scores at Coan because so many students passed when there was "no
way in hell" they could have passed. Students might actually increase their scores by five points
in a year, but not by 15 or 20. He stated that Colinda Howard from OIR came to Coan and
investigated. She ultimately told Principal Williams that the students performed well due to his
work.
Principal Williams thought he cleaned up the cheating when he arrived at Coan, which
explains why Coan's test scores dropped. He heard about how the cheating occurred in 2009.
Ron Washington wanted to be assistant principal and Williams heard that Washington changed
the tests after testing was over. The majority of the erasures were in special education, and
Washington, the special education administrator, had served as the testing coordinator for the
first three days of CRCT testing in 2009.
According to Williams, to be promoted, you must show growth in test scores. People
accomplish this goal "by any means necessary" in order to get $100,000 per year jobs. APS is
about movement and prestige. "If you cheat, you can move kids, you are going to get
promoted," and everyone knows it. Principal Williams stated he could get a meeting with the
President before he could see Dr. Hall.
2. Dr. Wayne Campbell (Testing Coordinator)
Dr. Campbell moved to Jamaica. We attempted to reach him by telephone, but he did not
return our calls.
3. Johnson Stuckey (Teacher)
We attempted to reach Johnson Stuckey for an interview but received no response.
4. Ron Washington (Special Education Administrator)
Ron Washington denied any participation in, or knowledge of, cheating. During the first
two days of the 2009 CRCT, Washington had sole access to the tests, but said he secured the
tests each day. He acknowledged that it was easier to change tests if students were pulled for
small group testing. During his second interview, Washington acknowledged that some students
were taken to the cafeteria to take the re-test if they were a "big disruption." He states this only
occurred a few times during the years he was at Coan. He denied instructing any teachers to
contact parents and tell them not to bring the child to school. Washington said he was aware that
Waller called parents, but that she either did so on her own, or another administrator directed her
189
to do so. Washington stated he questioned Alicia Waller about her actions, but did not recall
what explanation she offered.
E. Other Evidence
• In 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, Coan met AYP. In 20 1 0, Coan did not meet
AYP.
• Between 2009 and 2010 Coan saw a double digit increase (11%, 13% and
23%) in the number of students across sixth, seventh, and eighth grades,
respectively, that failed math on the CRCT.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Alicia Waller cheated on the CRCT. We conclude that Principal Andre
Williams and Ron Washington knew of and allowed cheating at Coan.
Based on the statistical evidence and the evidence we have found at schools with similar
statistical data, we believe that other flagged teachers cheated. However, we lack sufficient
evidence to determine which additional teachers cheated.
We also conclude Ron Washington instructed a teacher to tell parents of certain low-
performing children to keep their children home during testing or bring them to school late.
These students were then tested in a small group. Although Washington denied he gave this
instruction, he was aware that Waller had done this, but apparently took no action. He also
admitted that "behavior problem" students would be pulled out and tested in a small group.
We further conclude that Principal Andre Williams failed in his ultimate responsibility
for testing activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for, the
2009 CRCT. It is our conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation that Principal Williams failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT and adequately
supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and he is responsible for,
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
190
203
DOBBS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2025 Jonesboro Road Principal: Dana Evans SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Testing Coordinator: Warren Edwards
I. INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Dobbs Elementary in 2009 and other years. Fifty-four
people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Four teachers confessed to
cheating. Cheating at Dobbs is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, confessions
and witness testimony. Principal Dana Evans was one of the few APS employees to accept
responsibility for cheating that occurred in her school, and she is to be commended.
Nevertheless, she received multiple reports of cheating at Dobbs and therefore knew or should
have known of the cheating occurring at this school.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
33.3
6.9
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
30
6
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
14(11)
4(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
7.3
3.5
High Flagged Standard Deviation
21.3
4.2
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.2
3.1
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
Since 2005, cheating on the CRCT has occurred at Dobbs Elementary. Under the
administration of the previous principal, Carolyn Brown, CRCT materials were improperly
returned to teachers after testing hours. Wanda Harmon brought the CRCT answer sheets and
test booklets around on a cart, distributed them to teachers, and picked them up the next day.
Thus teachers had possession of both the testing booklet and CRCT student answer sheets
outside the testing period, and were able to erase and change students' answers.
Principal Evans became principal in 2007, and cheating continued at Dobbs under her
leadership, but not at her direction. She denied any knowledge of cheating, but accepts
professional responsibility for all cheating that occurred at Dobbs during her tenure as principal.
We commend her for accepting responsibility - she is one of the few in APS to do so.
Principal Evans regularly employed volunteer proctors (generally parents) who had no
training in test administration. At least one teacher witnessed a parent-proctor prompting
students on the CRCT.
191
Multiple fifth grade teachers testified that their incoming students lacked the skills
required to score as highly as they did on their fourth grade CRCT. Fourth grade teachers,
Derrick Broadwater, Shayla Smith, and Angela Williamson prompted their students to change
answers during the administration of the CRCT. Angela Williamson threatened students by
telling them they would have to repeat the fourth grade if they ever told of the cheating.
In addition to prompting, Derrick Broadwater and Shayla Smith possessed a photocopy
of the CRCT. They used the photocopy to prepare students for the upcoming questions on the
CRCT. Derrick Broadwater and Angela Williamson confessed to prompting students during the
administration of the CRCT.
Shayla Smith prompted Danielle Blair's students on the 2010 CRCT. Shayla Smith said
to another teacher "I had to give them [her students] the answers, those kids were dumb as hell."
Arlette Crump, a second grade teacher, prompted students on the 2009 CRCT. Dessa
Curb, a special education teacher, prompted students on the CRCT. Two paraprofessionals
assigned to Dessa Curb's classroom all testified that Curb not only prompted, but also erased and
changed students' answer sheets.
Sidnye Fells, who is no longer with APS, spoke to Principal Evans about her suspicions
that the fourth grade team cheated, and about testing violations at Dobbs in general. Principal
Evans changed the subject and took no action. Malcolm Brooks, who is no longer with APS,
also spoke to Principal Evans about his suspicions of cheating by the fourth grade team.
Principal Evans told Brooks that the fourth grade teachers simply had a rapport with their
students and knew how to motivate them.
Naomi Williams told Principal Evans about Curb's cheating, but Principal Evans took no
action and instead fired Williams.
Principal Evans instructed Tameka Grant to falsify CRCT records to indicate that
students who failed to meet expectations in 2009 received remedial help when they received no
such help. Tameka Grant met with GBI agents pursuant to this investigation, and informed them
of Principal Evans' instruction. Tameka Grant said she was terminated by Principal Evans a few
days later.
Principal Evans informed teachers at a staff meeting that if she were placed on a PDP for
low test scores, she would place every teacher on a PDP for low test scores as well.
Teachers suspected cheating at Dobbs, but did not report it for fear of retaliation. SRT-2
Executive Director Michael Pitts, speaking about this investigation, told the teachers, "If you
know something you are incriminating yourselves." Michael Pitts also said that some teachers at
other schools had attempted to retaliate against a principal and that these teachers told the GBI
about "all this stuff that principal had done, "and guess what, that principal is still there."
192
B.
Testimony of Witnesses
1.
Vera Yates (Teacher)
Vera Yates proctored the 2009 CRCT in Angela Williamson's classroom. Yates saw
Williamson prompt students to change incorrect answers during the administration of the test.
Williamson walked around the classroom, stood over students' shoulders, and pointed to the
correct answers. Williamson instructed Yates: "You didn't see that." Williamson gave answers
to the children she knew would perform poorly on the CRCT.
During the week of the 2009 CRCT, Yates saw Principal Evans and Assistant Principal
Mario Watkins in Principal Evans' conference room after school with the CRCT materials.
Principal Evans was seated at a table with a pencil in her hand and a stack of CRCT booklets in
front of her. Mario Watkins stood beside Principal Evans. Yates made eye contact with
Principal Evans, and quickly walked away. Yates never spoke with Principal Evans about the
incident. Yates stated that her performance reviews steadily declined after she witnessed
Principal Evans and Watkins in the conference room with a stack of CRCT booklets. Shortly
thereafter, Yates' contract was non-renewed. Yates believes Principal Evans is retaliating
against her because of what she witnessed.
Diane Brewer is a retired teacher that often substitute teaches at Dobbs. Brewer stated
there are many allegations at Dobbs that the fourth grade teachers, Derrick Broadwater, Shayla
Smith, and Angela Williamson cheat on the CRCT. Diane Brewer further stated that many fifth
grade teachers expressed frustration to her because the incoming former fourth grade students
could not perform at a fifth grade level.
Tameka Grant began working at Dobbs in October of 2009. Immediately upon her
assignment to the fourth grade, she began receiving warnings and hearing that other teachers on
the fourth grade team were known to cheat on the CRCT.
Shayla Smith administered the 2010 CRCT to the students of Danielle Blair, a new
teacher in 2009-2010. Tameka Grant testified that Danielle Blair's students were some of the
lowest performers at Dobbs on the benchmark exams, but scored among the highest classrooms
on the CRCT.
Principal Evans instructed Tameka Grant to falsify records to indicate that students who
failed to meet expectations on the 2009 CRCT received remedial instruction, even if the students
did not receive such instruction. Tameka Grant further testified that Principal Evans told all
teachers that if Principal Evans was placed on a PDP by Michael Pitts for low CRCT scores, then
Principal Evans would place every teacher on a PDP as well.
Tameka Grant was interviewed by the GBI on February 9, 201 1 . On February 11, 201 1,
Principal Evans informed Tameka Grant that her contract would not be renewed with APS for
the upcoming school year.
2.
Diane Brewer (Substitute Teacher)
3.
Tameka Grant (Teacher)
193
4. Arlette Crump (Teacher)
Arlette Crump stated that "certain people at the school have a habit of cheating." She
was referring to allegations that Shayla Smith, Derrick Broadwater, and Angela Williamson
cheated on the CRCT. Crump testified that two students told her that the fourth grade teachers
cheated on the CRCT in 2009. Specifically, the students told Arlette Crump that Derrick
Broadwater and Angela Williamson took them to the science lab before the CRCT and
"prepped" them with a copy of the CRCT. The students told Arlette Crump that the photocopied
test had the words "CRCT DO NOT COPY" printed on it. The students told Crump that Angela
Williamson threatened the students that if they ever told, they would have to go back and repeat
the fourth grade.
The father of one student contacted Crump and relayed the story to her as well. Crump
reported the cheating to Principal Evans. Principal Evans' response to Arlette Crump was that
she did not know how that could have happened since there were monitors in the classroom.
Principal Evans asked Crump if she knew of any other cheating. Crump told Principal Evans
that she had heard Broadwater and Williamson gave students answers during testing and that
Smith had taken the accelerated reading test herself in place of her students.
Crump thinks that word must have gotten back to Broadwater because one of the students
later told Crump that Broadwater told the students that the test was a coaching manual and not a
copy of the CRCT.
Crump admits to "bumping" students' desks when she noticed a wrong answer on the
CRCT and instructing the student to "look at that again." She stated that Principal Evans
"silently condones" cheating.
5. Brook Hanson (Teacher)
Brook Hanson stated that many of her incoming fifth grade students performed at a much
lower level than their fourth grade CRCT scores indicated. Hanson stated that Principal Evans
informed the teachers that if she were placed on a PDP by Michael Pitts for low CRCT scores,
then Principal Evans would place all teachers on a PDP for low test scores as well.
6. Francis Leach (Teacher)
The same student who told Arlette Crump about cheating on the 2009 CRCT told Francis
Leach that Angela Williamson cheated on the 2009 CRCT. Leach also heard claims at Dobbs
that Shayla Smith, Derrick Broadwater, and Angela Williamson cheated on the CRCT. Vera
Yates told Leach that Williamson prompted students with correct answers on the 2009 CRCT
while Yates proctored in Williamson's classroom. Leach also stated that Dessa Curb's students
always performed well on the CRCT, but most of them could not read.
Leach feared that he would lose his job if he reported cheating. Leach stated that he
called an Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter to report cheating within Dobbs. The reporter
emailed Leach at his APS email address, causing Leach to fear APS would discover he reported
cheating, so he never spoke to the reporter. Leach stated that, while attending a professional
development workshop, an APS official, identified only as Dr. Washington, instructed teachers
194
that they "were not to blast APS" when interviewed, and that teachers were "only to answer the
questions asked."
7. Binta Moncur (Teacher)
Binta Moncur testified that several teachers warned her about cheating in the fourth grade
when she began at Dobbs in 2008. She also received warnings to stay away from Derrick
Broadwater, Angela Williamson, and Shayla Smith. Malcolm Brooks, another teacher,
explained to Moncur that Broadwater, Smith, and Williamson copied the CRCT and used it to
cheat. Brooks also informed Moncur that the teacher she replaced refused to participate in the
cheating scheme, and no longer teaches at Dobbs.
During the week of CRCT testing in 2009, Broadwater and Smith approached Moncur
and asked her how many of her students would exceed standards on the CRCT. Moncur was
confused by the question, since it was impossible to tell midway through testing how many
students would exceed standards. Smith had a sheet of paper and was poised to write down
Moncur' s answer.
8. Danielle Blair (Teacher)
Shayla Smith administered the 2010 CRCT to Danielle Blair's students. Danielle Blair
testified that one of her students told her and the entire class that Smith gave that student answers
on the CRCT. Blair spoke to Smith, and Smith confirmed the student's story. Blair recounted a
conversation she had with Schajuan Jones, a fifth grade teacher who taught Shayla Smith's
former fourth grade students in 2010. Jones stated that Shayla Smith's former students could not
perform at the level they performed for Shayla Smith on common assessments in Jones'
classroom.
9. Naomi Williams (Paraprofessional)
Naomi Williams was a paraprofessional assigned to Dessa Curb's classroom. During the
2009 CRCT window, but after the testing period, Williams witnessed Curb erasing and changing
students' answer sheets. Curb kept the tests approximately two hours after the testing period
ended. Williams gave the investigators photographs that depict Curb's CRCT test booklets and
answer sheets spread out on a table in preparation for erasing. The photographs are included as
Attachment A. Curb instructed Williams to take a particular student to the back of the
classroom "and erase this mess and get with [the student] about the right answers." Williams
witnessed Principal Evans in the classroom after the testing period when the CRCT booklets and
answer sheets were still in the classroom.
Williams reported Curb's actions to Principal Evans, but she "acted like she didn't want
to hear it." Later that day, Principal Evans called Williams' home and told her son that Williams
was not to report to Dobbs, and instead to report to the downtown office. Williams was
terminated from APS.
195
10.
Erica Gober (Paraprofessional)
Erica Gober took the photographs included as Attachment A on her cellular telephone.
Gober was assigned to Curb's classroom after Naomi Williams was disciplined at Dobbs in
2009. Gober stated that because she heard that Curb cheated on the CRCT, she took the pictures
so she would not later be accused of tampering with the CRCT materials. Gober stated that she
took the pictures when Curb improperly left the classroom to take the students to their next class.
Gober heard that fourth grade teachers and Curb cheated on the CRCT. She also heard
that Williams tried to report cheating to Principal Evans and was terminated.
Sidnye Fells was a fourth and fifth grade teacher at Dobbs from 2005 to 2008, when she
resigned. Fells served under Principal Dana Evans, and her predecessor, Carolyn Brown. On
February 18, 2010, after reading a news story about cheating in APS, Fells sent a letter detailing
the cheating she witnessed at Dobbs to John Grant of the Professional Standards Commission. A
copy of that letter is included as Attachment B.
Fells was instructed by Carolyn Brown to mark every student present at Dobbs even if
they were absent. Fells refused, and marked her students absent when they were absent. On at
least one occasion, Fells' attendance records were altered. Fells took a picture of one of the
altered attendance records, and a copy is included as Attachment C.
Principal Evans often assigned volunteer proctors for the CRCT. The volunteers were
not trained in any way, and Fells witnessed at least one volunteer proctor prompting students to
change their answers on the CRCT. Under Principal Evans' administration, CRCT materials
were not counted at the end of the testing period, allowing teachers to retain copies of the CRCT.
Principal Evans did not make announcements over the intercom system telling the teachers when
testing was over. As a consequence, teachers improperly kept their tests after the testing period,
and allowed their students to work on the test longer than the allotted time. Fells voiced her
concerns to Principal Evans, but no changes were made.
Fells recalls a specific special education student who scored higher than any other student
in the school on the reading section of the CRCT. Fells heard that the special education teachers
read the CRCT to their students and used voice inflection to cheat. Fells stated that she no
longer fears retaliation since she is no longer employed by APS, but that other teachers would be
afraid to be truthful.
The skills of fifth grade students entering Malcolm Brooks' class did not match their
performance on the fourth grade CRCT. One student could barely read or perform basic
computations and exceeded standards across the board on his fourth grade CRCT. Malcolm
Brooks believes Derrick Broadwater, Shayla Smith, and Angela Williamson cheated on these
students' fourth grade CRCT exams. Brooks met with Principal Evans to discuss his concerns.
Principal Evans stated that the fourth grade teachers had a rapport with their students and were
able to motivate them in ways Brooks could not.
11.
Sidnye Fells (Teacher)
12.
Malcolm Brooks (Teacher)
196
Brooks left the APS system and now teaches in North Carolina. One reason he left APS
was because APS was "selling these kids short," by "giving them a false sense of
accomplishment."
13. Anthony Greene (Teacher)
Anthony Greene stated that incoming fifth grade students performed at a lower level than
their fourth grade CRCT score would indicate. He testified that he and other fifth grade teachers
believe the fourth grade teachers cheated on the CRCT in 2009 and other years.
14. Mario Watkins (Assistant Principal)
Assistant Principal Watkins stated that Principal Evans did not place teachers on PDPs
for low test scores. He denied any knowledge of cheating on the 2009 CRCT or in any other
year. When he viewed the wrong-to-right data, including the standard deviations for the teachers
at Dobbs, he stated "it's on them," indicating that only the teachers were involved in any
cheating at Dobbs.
75. Schajuan Jones (Teacher)
Jones heard Shayla Smith yelling at a student because the student told people that Smith
cheated on the CRCT. She also heard Smith tell another teacher, "1 had to give them [her
students] the answers, those kids are dumb as hell."
Jones heard a student tell Principal Evans that Smith was cheating on the CRCT in 2010.
That same week, Jones overheard two students discussing how Smith gave them answers on the
CRCT.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
7. Derrick Broadwater (Teacher)
Derrick Broadwater admitted he prompted students to re-read particular questions he
noticed they answered incorrectly on the 2009 CRCT and in other years. Broadwater testified he
was forced to prompt students to change their answers on the CRCT because when the students
came into his class from the third grade, their skills were far below the expected level.
Broadwater stated that at the time he prompted students he did not believe it was wrong or a
testing violation, but he has since realized it was wrong and a testing violation.
Principal Evans told all teachers that if she was placed on a PDP by Michael Pitts for low
CRCT scores, then every teacher would be placed on a PDP as well.
Broadwater described a meeting between the teachers at Dobbs and Pitts during the 201 0-
2011 school year. In that meeting, Michael Pitts told the teachers that with regard to being
interviewed for this investigation, "If you know something you are incriminating yourselves."
Pitts went on to say that some teachers at other schools had attempted to retaliate against a
principal and that these teachers told the GBI about "all this stuff that principal had done, "and
guess what, that principal is still there." Broadwater interpreted this to mean that if teachers
197
report cheating to us they are only hurting themselves, and that adverse action would not be
taken against principals by APS.
2. Shayla Smith (Teacher)
Shayla Smith denied any knowledge of cheating, and denied participating in any
cheating. Principal Evans told the Dobbs teachers that if she was placed on a PDP by Michael
Pitts for low CRCT scores, then all teachers at Dobbs would be placed on PDPs as well.
3. Angela Williamson (Teacher)
Angela Williamson admitted to improperly prompting students during the administration
of the 2008 and 2009 CRCT by telling the students to "go back over" a specific question when
the student answered the question incorrectly. She denied prompting any students on the 2007
CRCT or in any years prior. Angela Williamson stated that in 2009, her proctor, Tamara Franco
also prompted students in this way. Williamson denied saying to any of her proctors "you didn't
see that." Williamson testified that Principal Evans never instructed her or any other teacher to
cheat. Williamson returned her CRCT tests in a particular order, and sometimes the next day the
tests would be returned out of order.
4. Warren Edwards (Testing Coordinator)
Warren Edwards denies any knowledge of cheating on the CRCT. He stated that the only
way to explain the high number of wrong-to-right erasures at Dobbs was that the teachers must
have given students answers to the CRCT questions in the classroom.
5. Dessa Curb (Special Education)
Dessa Curb initially testified that she never left CRCT materials alone with a
paraprofessional, as that is a testing violation. When confronted with the pictures taken by Erica
Gober, she recanted her testimony, and stated that if she had left the room, she would have
locked the CRCT materials in her closet. Curb did not explain how the CRCT materials ended
up on the table as depicted in the photographs.
Curb admits she filled in answers to questions that students left blank on the CRCT. She
further admitted that when students selected more than one answer on the CRCT, she would
erase the wrong answer. When confronted with the testimony of witnesses who saw her erase
and change answers and give students answers for the CRCT, Curb claimed she was "being set
up."
6. Dana Evans (Principal)
Principal Evans stated that she never received a report of a testing violation or heard any
concerns from teachers regarding cheating. She further stated that certain fifth grade teachers
reported problems with their incoming students. Evans instructed the fifth grade teachers to
provide her with the names of the students and the reasons they were not performing, but she
believed the teachers' responses were vague. She thought the allegations the fifth grade teachers
made were a defense mechanism to compensate for their scores not being as high as the fourth
198
grade teachers' scores. Principal Evans believes "people cheat because they have a flaw in their
moral character."
Principal Evans testified that Dobbs was a problem school full of problem employees.
She specifically identified Naomi Williams. When confronted with Williams' statements to
investigators, Principal Evans stated that Ms. Williams had a vendetta against her because
Principal Evans terminated her. Principal Evans denied ever being in a conference room with
CRCT materials. She also denied ever seeing Dessa Curb's CRCT materials spread out on a
table. Principal Evans stated that she has tried to instill discipline in the staff and faculty at
Dobbs, with varying degrees of success. She believes that many teachers have or would attempt
to retaliate against her discipline by fabricating stories about cheating. She denied ever cheating
or condoning cheating.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Arlette Crump, Dessa Curb, Derrick Broadwater, Angela Williamson,
and Shayla Smith cheated on the 2009 CRCT.
We further conclude that Principal Evans knew, or should have known, that cheating on
the CRCT occurred at Dobbs in 2009, and in other years. Multiple teachers testified that they
brought concerns to Principal Evans regarding cheating, but Evans dismissed their concerns and
took no action. Former employees testified that they informed Principal Evans of cheating and
were terminated. Principal Evans testified that there were many bad teachers and
paraprofessionals at Dobbs, and that she believed the ones she terminated fabricated stories in an
attempt at retaliation. Principal Evans was one of the few APS employees to acknowledge that,
as a leader, she was responsible for everything that happened in her school. She denies cheating,
condoning cheating, or having any knowledge of cheating. We conclude that Principal Evans
did not cheat or direct anyone to cheat, but conclude that she should have known cheating
happened at Dobbs.
199
200
February 18, 2010
Georgia Professional Standards Commision
Attn: Mr. John Grant
Two Peachtree, suite 6000
Atlanta, GA 30303-3141
Dear Mr. John Grant:
Thank you, again, for allowing me the time to voice my concerns and give testimony of
cheating/unlawful behavior that I have witnessed at Dobbs Elementary School, I began my teaching
career at Dobbs Elementary tn the beginning of the 2003-04 school year as a 4th grade teacher. From
then until the end of the 2007-08 school year, I was employed with Atlanta Public Schools as a teacher
of 4th and 5th grades at Dobbs Elementary School.
During my first year at Dobbs Elementary, and each year following, I was pressured to cheat on the
CRCT. I was told that we needed to "make the floor" by any means necessary, and that if our school did
not make AYP and meet targets, we(teachers) could be put on PDPs and possibly lose our jobs. Teachers
were threatened and intimidated as a whole. From the beginning of the 2007-08 year, under the new
leadership of Dana Evans, both intimidation of some teachers and favoritism of other's (based on test
scores)began. Teachers who had high scoring classes were given such special privileges as bonus supply
money and the opportunities to attend conferences that I was not allowed to attend. In one instance,
my supply request list was "lost" even though it was submitted in a pack with the lists of other
coworkers who alt received their complete orders without issue. I had the lowest scoring dass on grade
level.
From my first year, i saw and heard mention of several different cheating strategies. They are:
* Once the seal is broken the first day of testing, you cart look ahead to the next day's test,
remember or write down as many questions as possible, and teach them to the students that
afternoon or the morning before the test.
* The principal/administrator can ensure that certain teachers have no proctor while others do.
This makes It easier for certain teachers to cheat.
* Proctors with no orientation/training who were parent volunteers, rather than APS employees,
were placed in certain classrooms, as well.
* A test booklet can be taken home. The person can either study it, photocopy the questions, or
simply copy the questions by hand. (The adminstrator in charge of the booklet count will
purposely overlook the inaccurate booklet count at the end of testing time that day.)
* Some teachers may give students certain signals, each for a different letter - A,B,C, or D.
* A teacher walking past a student may softly kick the desk Or chair of a student, alerting that
student that he/she has marked the wrong answer.
* A teacher /administrator reading the test aloud to a student may emphasize the correct answer
with the volume of his/her voice.
EXHIBIT
201
2
* A teacher may point to a question/answer and tell the student to "look it over" in order to alert
that student that he/she has marked the wrong answer.
* A teacher/adminstrator can ask that student mark their initial answers on a sheet of scrap
paper. Once that teacher/administrator approves the answers, the student can then copy them
to the real answer sheet.
e Administrators can return the booklets and answer sheets to the teachers when the state
proctors have left the building.
* Administrators can access the booklets and answer sheets and change the answers, since they
have full access to ail test materials during the week of testing.
« Teachers/administrators can change answers AS students are taking the test, or simply verbally
tell the student to change it.
e Administrators can change attendance figures in order to meet the attendance targets.
* Administrators can tell low-scoring students to stay home certain days of the test, orthe entire
week.
9 Administrators can instruct teachers to mark their entire dass present, whether it is true or not,
tn order to meet attentance targets.
During my tenure at Dobbs Elementary, I was told at times to mark all students present) whether they
were actually present or not. When I marked a student absent anyway, the "A" (for absent) was crossed
off when my attendance sheet was returned. And, I saw many attendance figures changed in the data
base. Tliis happened during my last two years at Dobbs Elementary, from 2006-2008.
During my earlier years at Dobbs Elementary, under the administration of Carolyn Brown, an
administrator brought my students' test booklets and answer sheets back to me after the state proctors
had left the building. When I asked why I was getting them back, I was told that I was supposed to check
over the answer sheets for any stray marks and erase any that f saw. When I asked why i needed the
test booklets as well, I was told that they wanted to keep everything together. I said I did not need
them, and was told to "just look over them anyway", I never touched them.
During my last year at Dobbs Elementary, under the administration of Dana Evans, the pressure to cheat
escalated and ) witnessed more unlawful testing practices. Teachers who spoke up against her policies
and opinions were punished. We were constantly threatened with PDPs. Some of my coworkers had no
proctor, f was there when Evans was informed of this. She appeared surprised, but made no effort to
assign them one. The next day, there was still no proctor. (It is my understanding that a proctor is not
needed if the class count is below 30 students.) My coworker and I were given one proctor to share
between our classes. About every 15 minutes, this proctor would come back and forth between our
classes, talking to the students as they tested. She obviously had not been trained or had an orientation.
I had never seen her working in the building before. And, I do not recall her name. There was some
confusion about the break times. And, some teachers would take breaks during the test while others
were still testing. Many teachers continued testing long after the signal was given for the test to end.
Before testing, when I spoke with Mrs. Evans about the pressure to match scores that had been
obtained by cheating, I was not taken seriously. To my knowledge, nothing was done by her to
investigate or stop any possible cheating.
Finally, here is a list of former APS employees were worked at Dobbs Elementary. They are all willing to
give their personal testimony of the cheating that has been allowed there for so many years,
EXHIBIT
202
TOOMER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
65 Rogers Street Principal: Dr. Tonya Saunders SRT-3 Executive Director: Dr. Gloria Patterson
Atlanta, Georgia 30317 Testing Coordinator: Hezekiah Wardlow
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Toomer Elementary in 2009 and in other years.
Fifteen people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Two teachers confessed to
cheating. Cheating at Toomer is evidenced by confessions and witness testimony. Principal
Tonya Saunders and Testing Coordinator Hezekiah Wardlow instructed teachers to cheat on the
CRCT and the Fifth Grade Writing Test. Principal Tonya Saunders failed to properly monitor
the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
21.4
0
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
9
0
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
4(3)
0
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
6.6
0
High Flagged Standard Deviation
14.6
0
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.8
0
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
Principal Saunders instructed teachers to prompt students to change their answers during
the 2009 CRCT, and to look ahead in the CRCT booklet and make sure the students were
prepared for the material to be tested.
Hezekiah Wardlow instructed Latoya Stiffend to arrange her students in a way that would
ensure that the lower achieving students received easier Fifth Grade Writing Test prompts.
Teachers used voice inflection to prompt their students during the administration of the
2009 CRCT.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
I. Lysandra Hardaway (Teacher)
Lysandra Hardaway admitted to prompting students by inflecting her voice to emphasize
the correct answer during the administration of the 2009 CRCT.
204
Hardaway testified that there were no proctors in the classrooms at Toomer, only
monitors who would occasionally walk into individual classrooms.
2. Sheila Brown (Teacher)
Sheila Brown confessed to prompting students by inflecting her voice to emphasize the
correct answer during the administration of the 2009 CRCT. She also admitted to prompting
students to change incorrect answers during the administration of the 2009 CRCT.
3. Megan Dosmann (Teacher)
During the administration of the 2006 CRCT, Principal Saunders instructed Megan
Dosmann to look ahead at the next section. Saunders said, "Your students better know
everything on the math section." Dorsmann testified that she felt that Principal Saunders was
encouraging her to cheat, or "feeling her out" to see if she would cheat.
Dosmann heard that the CRCT was photocopied at Toomer, but she never saw a
photocopy of any CRCT.
Megan Dosmann saw Denita Carr prompting students during the administration of the
CRCT. She was unsure of the year, but knew it to be between 2005 and 2009.
4. Latoya Royal Stiffend (Teacher)
Testing Coordinator Wardlow approached Latoya Stiffend during the Fifth Grade Writing
Test and suggested she seat students in an order such that students would obtain writing topics
that would improperly maximize students' scores. Stiffend denied that she seated her students in
the order Testing Coordinator Wardlow suggested.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Tonya Saunders (Principal)
Principal Saunders testified that she was in the hospital undergoing emergency surgery
during the administration of the 2009 CRCT. Testing Coordinator Wardlow was in charge of the
school during the 2009 CRCT. She testified that the tests were kept in Wardlow' s office, and
that she did not have a key to his office.
Principal Saunders admitted to instructing her teachers to look ahead in the CRCT
booklet and make sure that they taught the covered material before the next testing session. She
admitted instructing her teachers to tell individual students to check their answers when the
teacher noticed they had answered a particular question incorrectly. She later recanted and
denied making both admissions.
Principal Saunders placed teachers on PDPs for low test scores, and given this pressure
she was not surprised that they cheated. She was surprised that some students passed the CRCT
because their classroom performance did not match their CRCT scores. She stated that as long
as teachers met targets and students passed, she did not question how CRCT scores occurred.
205
2. Hezekiah Wardlow (Testing Coordinator)
Testing Coordinator Hezekiah Wardlow denied ever instructing Latoya Stiffend to seat
her students in a particular order for the Fifth Grade Writing Test. Principal Saunders had a key
to his office. A representative from SRT-3 was present with him during the CRCT testing
window.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Principal Saunders instructed her teachers to cheat by prompting
students to change answers on the 2009 CRCT. We also conclude that Principal Saunders
instructed her teachers to cheat by looking ahead in the 2009 CRCT test booklet to improperly
discover what material would be tested in those sections. Testing Coordinator Wardlow
instructed Latoya Stiffend to seat her students in a way that would alter the results of the 2009
Fifth Grade Writing Test. Sheila Brown and Lysandra Hardaway cheated by prompting their
students to change answers on the 2009 CRCT.
It is also our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation, that Principal Tonya Saunders failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and
adequately supervise the testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is
responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009
CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
206
BENTEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
200 Cassanova Street Principal: Dr. Diana Quisenberry SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Testing Coordinator: Theresia Copeland
I. INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Benteen Elementary in 2009. Thirty-six people at this
school were interviewed, some more than once. Cheating at Benteen is evidenced by a high
number of flagged classrooms and witness testimony. The principal, testing coordinator, and
math coach improperly viewed the CRCT early and "tutored" failing students by giving them the
test questions and answers. The testing coordinator changed answers and Principal Diana
Quisenberry knew that answers were changed. Principal Diana Quisenberry falsified attendance
records and failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
43.1
0
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WFR Erasures
22
0
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
9(8)
0
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
12.5
0
High Flagged Standard Deviation
23.8
0
Tow Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
0
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
KIRK
1 RD
4.816114506
KIRK
1 LA
7.106036004
KIRK
1 MA
6.592589571
EVANS
3 RD
17.90282248
EVANS
3 LA
3.317897736
EVANS
3 MA
13.89030544
RHODES
3 RD
15.96607601
RHODES
3 MA
11.23728008
SMITH C
3RD
20.56060439
SMITH C
3 LA
3.109935704
SMITH C
3 MA
20.84487831
BENTEEN
4 RD
4.88559548
BONDS
4 RD
16.26859827
BONDS
4 LA
18.51439902
BONDS
4 MA
14.68023992
DIMES SMITH
4 RD
5.336297633
DIMES SMITH
4 LA
3.55988236
PAULK
5 RD
18.37528305
PAULK
5 LA
8.336628077
VACTER
5 RD
22.37132955
VACTER
5 LA
23.81421432
VACTER
5 MA
13.49026513
207
in. SUMMARY OF EV IDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Benteen Elementary School
was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported to the Georgia
Department of Education.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 43. 1% for the 2009 CRCT.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT
only ten schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Benteen Elementary School.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
significantly from 43.1% to 0%.
Fourth, of the 22 flagged classrooms at Benteen Elementary School, 1 7 (77% of the total)
had standard deviations that exceeded live, and 13 classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations.
At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. The deviations from the state mean were, for a
number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at this school.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Benteen, 78.5% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
43.1% of the total classrooms in the school .
Finally, Principal Quisenberry, Testing Coordinator Theresia Copeland, and Math Coach
Dr. Marty Cummings improperly viewed the CRCT before it was administered and provided
struggling students with the questions and answers so that they could pass the test. After the
tests were administered in the afternoon and the SRT monitor left the building, Copeland took
the tests out of the vault and to her office where she changed answers from wrong to right.
B. Narrative
Benteen teachers returned CRCT materials, counted them in front of either Patricia
Whitehead or Dr. Marty Cummings, and put them in a plastic bin. Whitehead and Cummings
took the bins to the vault, where they were "secured" by Copeland and the SRT monitor. The
next morning. Whitehead and Cummings would get the tests from the vault and take them to the
classrooms. Five teachers testified that they put the tests in a particular order, but when they got
them back the next morning, the tests were out of order or altered. Cummings explains this by
saying that he counted the tests again when he got them back to the vault. This might explain
why the tests would be out of order except that Whitehead and Copeland testified that they were
not counted again.
Five people saw Copeland take the tests from the vault to her office in the afternoon.
One person saw the tests in her office spread out on a table. Cummings, who helped administer
the tests, testified there was no reason for the tests to come out of the vault in the afternoon.
208
Nine teachers did not believe the high CRCT scores reflected the actual abilities of their
students.
Principal Quisenberry, Copeland, and Cummings took students who had been identified
as likely to fail the CRCT out of class for "tutorial sessions." Students who were tutored later
told their teachers that they had seen all of the CRCT questions in these sessions.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Patricia Whitehead (Coach)
Patricia Whitehead assisted Testing Coordinator Theresia Copeland with the
administration of the CRCT in 2009. The classroom teachers collected the tests, counted them
out in front of Whitehead (or Dr. Marty Cummings), and placed the tests in a clear plastic box.
Whitehead watched the teachers count the tests and then wheeled the boxes on a cart to the
"vault" where they were stored until the next morning. In the morning. Whitehead returned the
boxes to the teachers who counted them again and administered the test. Whitehead never took
the tests out of the boxes or counted them. Only the teachers counted the tests. According to
Whitehead, there was no need to touch the tests between pickup and delivery.
At approximately 3:30 p.m. during the week of the CRCT, Whitehead was in the
cafeteria with Naja Brittain, Lucrelia Craig, and Jamesa Rhodes. They saw Copeland pushing
the tests on a cart down the hallway from the vault to her office. On another occasion that week.
Whitehead saw Copeland lock the tests in the vault in the presence of Cecil Jackson, the APS
monitor. Later that day, again around 3:30 p.m., Whitehead saw Copeland taking the tests
toward her office.
On another occasion. Whitehead went to Copeland' s office and saw the test booklets and
answer sheets out on a table.
Some teachers put their students' tests in a particular order at the end of testing each day.
Two teachers. Sheila Evans and Lori Revere-Paulk, complained to Whitehead that their tests
were out of order when they got them back in the morning. Whitehead could not explain why
the tests would have been in a different order.
Whitehead heard students who were tutored by Dr. Marty Cummings say that they had
seen the test questions prior to the CRCT.
2. Naja Brittain (Monitor)
Naja Brittain saw Copeland pushing the tests on a cart toward her office in the afternoon
during the testing week.
3. Lucrelia Craig (Cafeteria)
Lucrelia Craig also saw Copeland pushing the tests on a cart toward her office in the
afternoon during the testing week.
209
4. Jam esq Rhodes (Teacher)
A student told Jamesa Rhodes that she had already seen the questions on the CRCT. All
of her students passed the CRCT, including one student who could not read the word "cat."
According to the GOSA erasure analysis, that student had 14 WTR erasures out of 17 total
erasures on the reading section of her 2009 CRCT.
At 6:30 a.m., Rhodes saw Copeland come out of the main office with the tests on a cart.
Principal Quisenberry made Rhodes change a student's report card grade from a D to a C.
In the years before Principal Quisenberry became principal of Benteen, many students
failed the reading portion of the CRCT. The reading scores went up dramatically in 2007-2008.
In that year, only one student failed.
5. Javacia Jones (Paraprofessional)
In 2009, Javacia Jones proctored Lori Revere-Paulk' s fifth grade class. Revere-Paulk
always put the tests in alphabetical order at the end of the testing day She also always put the
instructional booklet on top of the stack of tests. On two occasions the tests came back out of
order and the instructional booklet was missing. Revere-Paulk complained to Copeland who said
not to worry about it.
Jones saw Theresia Copeland with the tests in her office in the morning.
Principal Quisenberry kept a list of who had been interviewed by the GBI, and for how
long.
6. Nicole Taylor (Teacher)
Nicole Taylor administered the CRCT to her first class in 2009. On the second testing
day her students' test booklets had their names written on the inside. The names had not been
there the day before.
In 2009, at approximately 3:00 p.m., she saw Copeland take the tests from the vault to her
office. Taylor knew something was going on because she thought there was a disconnect
between CRCT scores and actual abilities.
Some Benteen students told Leslie Bonds that they had seen the CRCT questions before.
Bonds covered her ears.
7. Shawn I 'actor (Teacher)
Shawn Vactor taught fifth grade in 2009. His students told him that the actual test
questions were just like the questions in their tutoring sessions. Vactor asked them, "Did y'all
have the answers," and a student replied, "I told you that."
210
Vactor put the tests each day in a certain order. When they were returned to him the next
day they were out of order. Some pages of the test booklets were folded back and opened.
8. Terrell Emerson (Teacher)
Terrell Emerson started at Benteen in the fall of 2009. He heard teachers talk about how
the administrators. Principal Qui senberry, Theresia Copeland, Dr. Marty Cummings, and
Towanda Harris, altered tests.
Emerson claimed Principal Qui senberry has been falsifying attendance records. One of
his students was absent over one hundred days, but when Emerson got the attendance report back
from the main office it showed only three or four absences. Emerson complained about the
discrepancy to Principal Qui senberry who said there must have been a "glitch" in the system.
After he reported the attendance issues to Principal Qui senberry, she started sending observers to
watch him teach. Shortly thereafter he was placed on a PDP. Emerson said that Principal
Quisenberry took similar retaliatory actions against Ryan Abbott when Abbott reported that
Sheila Evans gave her students the answers to the CRCT.
9. Ryan Abbott (Teacher)
Twelve students in Ryan Abbott's fourth grade class told him that their former teacher,
third grade teacher Sheila Evans, gave them the answers to the CRCT. He called the APS
hotline to report the cheating.
10. Joann Banks (Front Office)
A student told Joann Banks that her teacher, Toni Travis, gave her answers to the CRCT.
11. Bethanie Barnes (Teacher)
Bethanie Barnes turned in report cards with D and F grades Principal Quisenberry and
Theresia Copeland told her that grades below a C were against school policy. They sent the
report cards back to Barnes and told her to change the students" grades.
12. Leslie Bonds (Teacher)
Students told Leslie Bonds they had seen the CRCT in their tutorial sessions.
13. Alexis Dimes-Smith (Teacher)
Alexis Dimes-Smith put the tests in a certain order when she turned them in at the end of
each day. Two out of five days of testing, the tests were returned to her in a different order.
14. Veronica Kirk (Teacher)
Veronica Kirk administered the test to her first grade class in 2009. She put the tests in a
certain order when she turned them in and every day they were out of order when she got them
back.
211
Some results surprised her. For example, one of her students left an entire section blank
yet passed the CRCT.
Copeland told Kirk during the week of the tests that her students did well. She would
have only known if she had been looking at the tests.
15. The following people testified that there were one or more students in their
class whose passing scores surprised them
Patricia Whitehead (literacy coach) (she taught reading to students who could not read at
their grade level); Sheila Evans (third grade teacher who had a number of students who had
difficulty reading and passed the CRCT); Kimberlyn Gaston (paraprofessional who knows of
fifth graders who cannot read yet met expectations on the CRCT); Towanda Harris (School
Improvement Specialist who testified that students cannot pass their grade level assessment tests
but passed the CRCT); Clinton Smith (third grade teacher who identified one student who
surprised him that she passed the CRCT; this student had 10 WTR erasures out of 10 total
erasures on the reading portion of the CRCT); Anne Elizabeth Martin (first grade teacher who
identified one student she was surprised to learn passed the CRCT; this student had 17 WTR
erasures out of 20 total erasures on the language arts section and 26 WTR erasures out of 32 total
erasures on the reading section); and Javacia Jones (paraprofessional who knows of many
children who cannot read and passed the CRCT).
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
/. Dr. Diana Quisenberry (Principal)
Principal Quisenberry denied cheating and claims she is not aware of anyone changing
test answers. She denied changing attendance records or causing anyone else to alter them. She
docs not have a school policy that children cannot make less than a C, and has never suggested
that grades change from a D or F to a C.
Principal Quisenberry saw teachers bring the tests to Copeland' s office to count and sort.
On one occasion she knocked on Copeland' s door and Copeland said she could not come in
because the tests were in there. Principal Quisenberry saw the tests stacked on a table through a
window. Quisenberry said that this observation was prior to the administration of the test and
that Copeland needed to sort the tests into boxes for the teachers.
Principal Qui senbeny thinks that this investigation is politically motivated and pointed
out that the schools under investigation are predominantly A fri can- Am eri can schools.
2. Theresia Copeland (Testing Coordinator)
Theresia Copeland denied cheating on the CRCT.
Copeland worked with Principal Qui senberry in two other schools and they are close
friends.
According to Copeland, the teachers counted the tests, not the test administrators.
212
3.
Dr. Marty Cummings (Math Coach)
Dr. Cummings assisted in the administration of the 2009 CRCT. He picked up the tests,
counted them in front of teachers, and then re-counted them before putting them in the vault.
He testified there would be no reason to take the tests out of the vault in the afternoon
after they had been secured.
4. Sheila Evans (Teacher)
Sheila Evans denied giving her students any test answers in 2008. She heard that people
were erasing answers at Benteen for years prior to 2009. She said that students identified as not
likely to meet expectations were pulled out of class for tutorials in the weeks prior to the CRCT.
They were tutored by Principal Quisenberry, Theresia Copeland, or Dr. Cummings.
Principal Quisenberry tells teachers the lowest grade they may give students is a C.
Evans no longer works for APS. We have learned that she has sued APS.
E Other Evidence
A teacher at Benteen reported cheating in May of 2009. The allegations were that
Copeland and Dr. Cummings pulled students from the classroom in the weeks before the CRCT
and gave them the questions and answers directly from the CRCT book. The complaint also
alleged that there were children who scored very high on the test even when they slept through
the CRCT or did not know the answers to most of the questions. APS hired Penn Payne to
investigate. Teachers at Benteen told Payne much of the same information they gave us. Payne
concluded that because she obtained a large amount of "inconsistent, contradictory, and
uncorroborated information." she was reluctant to reach conclusions about whether there was
cheating. Instead, she recommended that the testing and achievement experts hired by APS
examine Benteen in their analysis.
On September 17, 20 1 0, after we began our investigation, Payne amended her report on
Benteen. She concluded that Sheila Evans cheated and that it was possible Copeland, Cummings
and Principal Quisenberry cheated.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Testing Coordinator Theresia Copeland changed answers on the 2009
CRCT. After the tests were administered in the afternoon, and the SRT monitor left the building,
Copeland would take the tests out of the vault and to her office where she changed answers from
wrong to right. This explains the tests being out of order each day, and why the students scored
better on the CRCT than was reflected by their abilities in the classroom. We conclude that
Principal Quisenberry knew Copeland was changing answers.
We also conclude that Principal Diana Quisenberry, Theresia Copeland, and Dr. Marty
Cummings viewed the CRCT early and "tutored" students by reviewing the actual test.
213
Principal Diana Quisenberry failed in her responsibility for testing activities and for
ensuring the ethical administration of and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence that Dr. Quisenberry failed to properly
monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing activities and test security. This
resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the
results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
Finally, we find that Principal Quisenberry ordered her teachers to improperly give all
students a C or above and falsified attendance records.
214
BEECHER HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2257 Bollingbrook Drive Principal: Dr. Robin Hall SRT-3 Executive Director: Dr. Gloria Patterson
Atlanta, Georgia 30311 Testing Coordinator: Crystal Jones
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Beecher Hills Elementary in 2009 and in other years.
Forty-two people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Three teachers
confessed to cheating. Cheating at Beecher Hills is evidenced by a high number of flagged
classrooms, confessions, and witness testimony. Principal Robin Hall failed to properly monitor
the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
42.6
2.4
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
23
1
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
10(7)
1(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
8.1
3.4
High Flagged Standard Deviation
19.2
3.4
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.0
3.4
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
MEADOWS
1 RD
7.425756593
MEADOWS
1 LA
9.185159218
MEADOWS
1 MA
5.360238788
DAVIS
2 MA
3.325295443
FOWLER
2 RD
6.925389177
FOWLER
2 LA
6.939522682
FOWLER
2 MA
7.654532653
LONG
2 RD
14.44128005
LONG
2 LA
12.54966787
LONG
2 MA
12.62085791
LITTLE
3RD
7.586797809
LITTLE
3 LA
4.508882848
LITTLE
3 MA
5.789043049
ROSS
3 RD
3.300656702
ROSS
3 LA
3.032519074
ROSS
3 MA
8.870670614
UPSHAW
3RD
11.95338131
UPSHAW
3 LA
8.873571835
UPSHAW
3 MA
3.700818309
AKINS
4 MA
3.684144795
HUMPHRIES
4 MA
4.874674245
VARNADO
5 RD
19.19833328
VARNADO
5 LA
14.61152034
215
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
There are several facts which point to a conclusion that Beecher Hills Elementary School
was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 42.6% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only 14 schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms
dropped from 42.6% to 2.1%.
Third, of the 23 flagged classrooms at Beecher Hills, 15 (70% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and six classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a further indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Beecher Hills Elementary School.
Fourth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures, 51% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 27.8% of the
total classrooms in the school.
Fifth, testing procedures were not clearly understood by the teachers. Teachers were
allowed to read passages aloud to first and second grade students during the reading portion of
the 2009 CRCT. Latenza Lawrence testified that she was instructed by Reading Coach Joye
Bradley to read passages aloud to her second grade students. The practice ended after the
erasure analysis was published.
Sixth, testing security was poor at Beecher Hills. The CRCT materials were stored in the
testing coordinator's office and people came in and out throughout the day during testing.
Catherine Mack witnessed Brandon McClendon, a paraprofessional, in the science resource
room with a stack of CRCT answer sheets and a pencil "taking care of stray marks."
Finally, three teachers, Florence Bankston, Michelle Ross, and Dana Little, admitted to
cheating during the 2009 CRCT. Michelle Ross purposefully seated her students such that the
higher achieving students sat next to lower achieving students during the 2009 CRCT so that the
lower achieving students could copy the work of the higher achieving students. She also allowed
her students to use extra time to copy one another's answers.
A. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Latenza Lawrence (Teacher)
Latenza Lawrence testified that in 2006, Joye Bradley entered her room during the
administration of the reading portion of the CRCT and instructed her to read the passages of the
reading section aloud to her students. Lawrence believed that was improper.
216
2. Catherine Mack (Teacher)
Catherine Mack believes cheating occurred at Beecher Hills on the 2009 CRCT, and in
other years. She heard that teachers prompted their students during the administration of the
CRCT. She testified that classroom doors were closed during the 2009 CRCT, and windows
were covered. She believes that most teachers looked ahead to the next day's section of the
CRCT test booklet. Teachers always met after each testing day to discuss what was going to be
tested in the next session.
She saw Paraprofessional Brandon McClendon in a room with a stack of CRCT answer
sheets and a pencil in 2009. She asked him what he was doing, and he responded "taking care of
stray marks." She recalled many of her students told her in 2009, and in years past that their
former teachers gave them answers during the CRCT.
During the reading portion of the CRCT at Beecher Hills, the first grade teachers were
permitted to read the passages aloud to students. Once the news of the cheating investigation
broke, however, the first grade teachers were no longer permitted to read the passages aloud.
B. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Florence Bankston (Proctor)
Florence Bankston administered the 2009 CRCT to PEC children in the media center.
She admitted to prompting students to change answers on the 2009 CRCT.
2. Michelle Ross (Teacher)
Michelle Ross admitted to seating higher achieving students next to lower achieving
students in 2009 and other years so that the students could cheat. Ross admits that she sat her
students in that particular order specifically to allow her students to cheat. She also admits that
once her students finished the CRCT she allowed them to use the extra time to copy each other's
work.
Ross also admits to prompting her students to change incorrect answers during the
administration of the 2009 CRCT, and in other years.
3. Dana Little (Teacher)
Dana Little admits to prompting her students to re-read particular questions when she
noticed a student answered a particular question incorrectly. She further testified that she was
currently on a PDP for low test scores in 2010.
4. Crystal Jones (Testing Coordinator)
Crystal Jones became principal of Beecher Hills in 2009 after Principal Hall was
promoted to SRT-3 Executive Director. Crystal Jones was the Testing Coordinator during the
2009 CRCT at Beecher Hills. She testified that she knew of no testing irregularities or cheating.
217
Because she was a kindergarten teacher before becoming ILS and then principal, Crystal Jones
has never administered the CRCT.
Crystal Jones testified that she is currently on a PDP for low CRCT scores on the 2010
CRCT.
5. Robin Hall (Principal)
Robin Hall denied any knowledge of cheating on the CRCT in 2009 or in any other year.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Florence Bankston, Michelle Ross, and Dana Little cheated on the
CRCT in 2009 and in other years.
Based on the statistical evidence and what we have found at schools with similar
statistical data, we believe that other flagged teachers also cheated. We lack sufficient evidence
to determine which additional teachers cheated.
It is also our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation, that Principal Robin Hall failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and
adequately supervise the testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is
responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009
CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
218
FAIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
101 Hemphill School Road NW Principal: Dr. Marcus Stallworth SRT- 1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, GA 30331-1621 Testing Coordinator: Pamela Ringer
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Fain Elementary in 2009 and in previous years.
Twenty-nine people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Two teachers
confessed to cheating. Teachers and administrators erased and changed answers on the CRCT.
Cheating at Fain is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, confessions and witness
testimony. Principal Marcus Stallworth directed teachers to cheat on the CRCT by telling them
to use voice inflection, point to answers, prompt students to erase and change answers, re-word
questions, or by any other means necessary. Testing Coordinator Pamela Ringer also
encouraged teachers to cheat using these methods.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
39.7
18.8
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
31
13
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
17(9)
8(4)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
9.68
4.1
High Flagged Standard
30.6
5.5
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.02
219
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
CAR WISE
1 RD
3.705585441
CAR WISE
1 LA
6.088895616
CAR WISE
1 MA
4.610629223
MCALPIN
1 RD
7.805389288
MCALPIN
1 LA
9.562743096
MCALPIN
1 MA
6.101663918
HOLMES
1 MA
3.590645178
LUCKIE
1 LA
4.856240058
LUCKIE
1 MA
4.078116832
DICKEY
1 LA
5.640940021
SALES
2 RD
16.70813386
SALES
2 LA
20.81894726
SALES
2 MA
22.77842843
SIMON
2 MA
4.231286213
TIMMON
2 LA
3.186094992
RICKS
2 LA
3.790038236
WITMER
3 RD
27.26168023
WITMER
3 LA
25.68539899
WITMER
3 MA
30.65179877
STEVENS
3 RD
9.732968355
STEVENS
3 LA
16.28511265
STEVENS
3 MA
14.61380638
JOHNSON
4 RD
3.862024884
JOHNSON
4 MA
4.577041882
FRANCIS
4 RD
3.565992132
HOWARD
4 LA
7.687164629
BUTLER
4 RD
4.750123138
BROWN
5 RD
4.819573861
BROWN
5 LA
5.929359881
FORDHAM
5 RD
7.120942884
FORDHAM
5 LA
6.609480502
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Fain Elementary School was
not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported to the Georgia
Department of Education.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 39.7% for the 2009 CRCT.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only ten schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Fain Elementary School.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
significantly from 39.7% to 18.8%.
Fourth, of the 31 flagged classrooms at Fain Elementary School, 18 (58% of the total)
had standard deviations that exceeded five, and eight classrooms exceeded ten standard
deviations. At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred
without adult intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard
deviations the probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations
220
from the state mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad
scale at Fain Elementary School.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Fain, 72.4% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 39.7%
of the total classrooms in the school.
Last, multiple teachers confessed to cheating and testified that Principal Stallworth
directed the cheating at this school.
B. Narrative
Witnesses at Fain testified that Principal Stallworth and Testing Coordinator Ringer
instructed teachers to assist students on the CRCT by using voice inflection, pointing out
answers, using non-verbal communication to indicate when a student marked a wrong answer,
rewording questions, and any other means necessary. Many teachers followed Principal
Stallworth and Ringer's directives and cheated on the test.
In addition, Principal Stallworth and Ringer either participated in erasing and changing
student answers or they failed to enforce proper testing protocols, giving teachers the opportunity
to erase and change student answers. One teacher testified that she saw Stallworth and Ringer
"looking over test documents" and that both were together at the school on weekends while the
tests were in the school.
Teachers cheated in many instances because of pressure from Stallworth to meet targets.
Principal Stallworth constantly and routinely threatened teachers with job loss or negative
evaluations if they failed to improve scores. Principal Stallworth embarrassed teachers that had
low-performing students.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
/. Geneva McCall fSST)
Principal Stallworth pressured teachers to make sure students passed the CRCT.
Stallworth used PDPs to keep teachers from transferring out of Fain.
2. Tasha Marks (Teacher)
APS administrators generally, and Principal Stallworth and Pamela Ringer specifically,
put a great deal of pressure on teachers to meet targets. Stallworth told teachers during a faculty
meeting that if their students' test scores were low on the CRCT, he would change the teachers'
evaluations that had previously been completed.
In 2009, Marks taught reading at Fain. No more than 30% of her students could have
passed based on how they performed prior to the test. She felt the reading scores on the CRCT
did not accurately reflect the students' actual academic performance. Marks made it clear that
she would not cheat, and feels Stallworth retaliated against her because she would not go along
with the cheating culture.
221
3. Melvina Holmes (Teacher)
Principal Stallworth made it abundantly clear that teachers needed to do what they
needed to do to make sure that the requisite number of students met or exceeded standards on the
CRCT. He openly encouraged teachers to use voice inflection. He demonstrated how to prompt
students using his eyes and eyeglasses. Melvina Holmes believes that Testing Coordinator
Pamela Ringer was present during faculty meetings when Principal Stallworth gave these
instructions.
Cedric Carwise told Ms. Holmes how Principal Stallworth had demonstrated to him how
to use voice inflection and then told him, "that's how you do it."
It was important to the administrators that Fain "made the floor" at the Convocation.
During teachers' pre-evaluation conferences, Principal Stallworth informed teachers that if they
did not meet targets, he would add it to their evaluation and place them on a PDP.
4. Darius Dowdell (Former Fain Teacher)
Darius Dowdell taught at Fain from 1997 to 2008. Principal Stallworth pressured
teachers and students to improve scores on the CRCT. Principal Stallworth singled out teachers
in meetings and announced their CRCT scores. If the scores were low, Principal Stallworth
ordered the teacher to crawl under the table in front of all the other faculty. He routinely made
statements like: "It's my school and I will run it how I want. If you don't like it, leave."
Dowdell had no direct knowledge of cheating, but recalled that one year one of his
students refused to take the test. That student still achieved a passing score on the CRCT.
5. Marsha Howard-Holliday (Teacher)
Marsha Howard-Holliday taught at Fain from 2006 to 2010. One year during the CRCT,
she saw Pamela Ringer and Principal Stallworth looking at the tests in a way that made her
suspicious. Ringer and Principal Stallworth were at the school on weekends during the testing
period and had access to the tests.
Holliday suspects cheating at Fain. She became suspicious after Fain "made the floor"
several years in a row. Some children at Fain could not function at the level the testing
indicated, yet the school continued to make targets. In one particular year, one of Holliday' s
students did not finish the math portion of the CRCT, but still achieved a passing score.
It was extremely important to Principal Stallworth to "make the floor." Principal
Stallworth told teachers they need to "do whatever it takes."
Holliday denied erasing anything on her students' test, giving students answers, or using
voice inflection to prompt students on the CRCT.
222
6. Yolanda McQueen (Teacher)
Principal Stallworth told the teachers that they should "use whatever means necessary" to
ensure students passed the CRCT.
7. Douglas Rozier (Teacher)
Douglas Rozier taught at Fain for fifteen years. When Stallworth was principal, Principal
Stallworth told teachers during faculty or grade-level meetings to use voice inflection to assist
the students on the CRCT. He instructed teachers to "make it work" and that when monitoring
the room, teachers should direct students to the correct answers. Principal Stallworth also said
teachers should give students additional time on the test. Principal Stallworth pressured teachers
to follow his instructions by making statements such as: "This is my school and if you don't
abide by my rules, I will ship you out."
Testing Coordinator Pamela Ringer followed Principal Stallworth' s instructions to cheat.
She encouraged voice inflection and advised teachers to put the test questions in the "simplest
form" while administering the test.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Sabrina Luckie (Teacher)
Sabrina Luckie admitted to prompting students on the CRCT. Principal Stallworth
instructed Sabrina Luckie and other teachers that while administering the CRCT, they needed to
use voice inflection to assist the students. Luckie denied using voice inflection, but admitted that
she would improperly give her students "the look" if she noticed they missed certain answers.
She also pointed to a question if the student had it wrong so that the student would look at it
again. Luckie attributed the high erasures in her class to these types of prompts. Luckie
believed that other teachers similarly assisted their students. One former teacher at Fain, Ms.
Moore, had a class that struggled academically but all her students exceeded on the CRCT.
2. Cedric Carwise (Teacher)
Cedric Carwise admitted to improperly rewording questions so his students could better
understand them. Principal Stallworth drilled the teachers at Fain with APS targets, especially
grades three through five. He told Carwise not to forget the "power of the voice." Stallworth
then demonstrated to Carwise how to use voice inflection. Stallworth often told teachers that
they needed to use "any means necessary" to ensure the students passed the CRCT.
3. Marcus Stallworth (Principal)
Marcus Stallworth served as Principal at Fain until December 2010. He denied cheating
on the CRCT or encouraging teachers to cheat. He never suggested that teachers use voice
inflection during a test and never told them to reword questions. Once, in a faculty meeting, he
demonstrated the use of voice inflection on a test as an example of a tactic that teachers should
not use. He claimed that some of the teachers may have misinterpreted that suggestion.
223
He denied telling teachers to "do what they needed to do" to make sure students pass the
test. Rather, he said he told his teachers to "do what they needed to do to make sure students
were ready to sit down and take the test."
Stallworth confirmed that he told teachers that their evaluations could be changed based
on their students' CRCT scores. APS administrators instructed principals to convey that
message to their teachers. He never changed any teacher's evaluation as a result of test scores.
In December 2010, APS terminated Stallworth claiming he screamed at teachers and
demeaned them. He believes that his termination was in retaliation for statements he made in an
interview in the spring of 2009 as part of an investigation into cheating. Stallworth explained
that during that interview he said that some APS schools made huge jumps in test scores and that
he understood why APS had come under suspicion. Stallworth suspects that some cheating was
going on in APS due to large jumps in test scores in such a short period of time.
In the fall of 2009, SRT-1 Executive Director Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams held a
conference call with all the principals in SRT 1. She instructed her principals to collect
everything they had regarding the CRCT, including e-mails, teacher materials, testing
motivation, and training packets. Stallworth sent those items to her in a three-ring binder. It
appeared that Davis-Williams was in a hurry to get the material. During that same
teleconference, Dr. Davis- Williams told the SRT-1 principals they were not to use their email or
the telephone to send out anything related to the CRCT. Stallworth commented to his ILS that,
"if APS did nothing wrong, they were certainly making it appear as if they had."
APS put pressure on principals to meet targets. During principals' meetings, and in the
annual meeting with Dr. Hall, the administrators told principals that their evaluations were tied to
targets. Dr. Hall would go around the room and almost force principals to say they would meet
90% of their targets.
The APS system is hostile from the top to the bottom. "If you are not a puppet, you get
gone." The "puppeteering comes from the top."
4. Pamela Ringer (Testing Coordinator)
Pamela Ringer denied knowledge of, or participation in, cheating. She denied ever
hearing Principal Stallworth tell teachers to use voice inflection or prompt students in any way
on the CRCT.
E. Other Evidence
• Fain met AYP in the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 school years.
• In 2009-2010, Fain did not meet AYP criteria for academic performance.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Principal Stallworth and Testing Coordinator Pamela Ringer directed
and facilitated cheating on the CRCT in 2009 and other years. Stallworth and Ringer deny any
224
knowledge of cheating, but numerous teachers testified that Stallworth and Ringer instructed
them to assist students during the administration of the CRCT by using voice inflection,
prompting, giving answers, allowing students additional time and changing answers to improve
student scores. Many teachers admitted that they followed their leaders' directives to cheat due
to intimidation, fear of job loss or negative evaluations.
Sabrina Luckie and Cedric Carwise admit that they followed Principal Stallworth' s
instructions to cheat.
Although no one confessed to erasing and changing answers, the statistical improbability
of even the lowest standard deviations at Fain, as well as a review of the student test data, points
to adults erasing and changing answers. One witness observed Principal Stallworth and Testing
Coordinator Ringer looking over the tests. This same witness stated that these administrators
were frequently at the school together.
Principal Marcus Stallworth failed in his ultimate responsibility for testing activities and
for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this investigation that
Principal Stallworth failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing
activities and test security. This resulted in, and he is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting
or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
225
SLATER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1320 Pryor Road Principal: Dr. Selena Dukes- Walton SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Testing Coordinator: Vanessa Jackson
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Slater Elementary in 2009. Twenty-seven people
were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Two teachers confessed to cheating.
Cheating at Slater is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, confessions and witness
testimony. Testing Coordinator Vanessa Jackson and Principal Selena Dukes-Walton knew
about cheating. Principal Dukes-Walton failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
30.3
5.2
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
30
5
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
15(10)
4(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
10
3.4
High Flagged Standard Deviation
31.8
3.7
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3
3
226
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
GRESHAM
1 LA
3.364767019
LYNUM
1 RD
3.036639216
LYNUM
1 MA
3.074088147
WALKER
1 RD
5.609065799
WALKER
1 LA
13.37276937
WALKER
1 MA
19.84048361
GRAHAM
2 RD
15.76058602
GRAHAM
2 LA
16.91452997
GRAHAM
2 MA
16.59604769
NOLAN
2 RD
7.388164275
NOLAN
2 LA
5.165466638
NOLAN
2 MA
8.327930008
ST ARRE
2 MA
7.002698269
UNUNAKWE
2 LA
6.016216606
UNUNAKWE
2 MA
8.565931576
AUSMORE
3 LA
3.351043196
AUSMORE
3 MA
3.702572445
COLEMAN
3 RD
5.038191689
TAYLOR
3 RD
15.16808995
TAYLOR
3 LA
6.073024418
TAYLOR
3 MA
4.317325691
WINSTON
3RD
20.02061696
WINSTON
3 LA
3.114788407
BLACKMON
4 RD
4.354670541
BLACKMON
4 LA
4.321901605
GRANT
4 RD
11.86774071
GRANT
4 LA
18.72779953
GRANT
4 MA
23.89018266
HICKS
4 RD
31.79652758
JONES
5 RD
3.564907392
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
Teachers Ellen Grant and Nettie Walker gave students the answers during the 2009
CRCT. Grant allowed her students to go home and look up answers and then change the
previous day's answers. She also erased and changed answers on her students' tests. Nettie
Walker gave students the answers during the test and changed answers in the media center while
"erasing stray marks "
Testing Coordinator Vanessa Jackson saw Ellen Grant changing answers and did not tell
her to stop. Principal Dukes-Walton created an environment that pressured teachers to cheat, and
she knew they were cheating.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Katrina Coleman (Teacher)
Katrina Coleman heard that Principal Dukes-Walton asked Math Coach Shenita Monroe
to cheat on the 2009 CRCT. Coleman also heard that Gwendolyn Taylor's husband saw
Principal Dukes-Walton's car at Slater on the weekend between the first and second week of the
CRCT when the tests were located at the school.
227
Principal Dukes-Walton was focused on CRCT results. At a faculty meeting she used a
power point presentation to list every teacher and their students' test scores. Coleman felt this
was done to embarrass teachers with lower test scores. Each year, Principal Dukes-Walton
prepared a document that informed the teachers how many students needed to meet or exceed
expectations on the CRCT. They would go over this information in January, and a copy of the
memorandum would be placed in the testing materials in April. A copy of the Memorandum
included as Attachment A.
Coleman's students tried to tell her that teachers gave them the answers in previous years
but Coleman would not let them explain because she did not want to have to report cheating.
She feared retaliation if she reported the students' allegations.
Coleman heard that Principal Dukes-Walton asked each teacher at Slater whether they
had been subpoenaed for this investigation. Administrators constantly reminded teachers they
should keep quiet and not cooperate with the investigation.
Coleman said she believes APS is like an "organized crime family" because APS has a
way of making things disappear. For example, Coleman filed a grievance while at Slater and
submitted it to SRT-2 Executive Director Michael Pitts. The grievance was about stolen money
that Principal Dukes- Walton knew about but did not address. Coleman has never heard anything
from APS about her grievance.
2. Schajuan Jones (Teacher)
At the end of the testing week teachers from each grade level were called to the media
center to erase stray marks. Schajuan Jones saw Ellen Grant erasing an entire section on an
answer sheet. Jones told Grant to stop cheating and then approached Testing Coordinator
Vanessa Jackson to report this misconduct. Jackson did not take any action until Jones
complained a second time, when Jackson finally told Grant to stop erasing answers. According
to Jones, the other teachers in the room were laughing during this exchange. An SRT-2
representative, Maxine Coleman, was present for this incident, as were most of the fourth and
fifth grade teachers. Jones specifically remembers that Janice Hicks and Jermaine Ausmore were
present. Jones indicated that this "erasing of stray marks" as a group occurred all three years she
taught at Slater.
During the 2009 CRCT, Jones saw Shenita Monroe walking from the direction of the
school's main office making comments about not doing something. Jones asked Monroe what
she was talking about. Monroe said she was talking about changing answers on the CRCT.
Monroe also mentioned Principal Dukes-Walton's name, but did not specifically say that the
principal asked her to change answers. However, Jones believes that Principal Dukes-Walton
asked Monroe to change answers on the CRCT.
3. Shenita Monroe (Teacher)
Shenita Monroe denied the incident reported by Schajuan Jones. Monroe says that
Principal Dukes-Walton never asked her to cheat. However, Dukes-Walton did put Monroe on a
PDP for low test scores. The PDP did not explicitly state that low test scores were the reason for
the PDP, but Dukes-Walton told Monroe that was the reason for the PDP.
228
4. Ellen Grant (Teacher)
Ellen Grant admitted to cheating on the 2009 CRCT. She encouraged students to go
home and look up the answers to the CRCT questions. The next day she allowed the students to
go back to previous sections and change their answers. Grant also changed answers herself
while her proctor took the students to the restroom. She changed answers for the "middle
performers."
Grant denied changing answers in the media center with other teachers. She claimed she
could not have changed answers then because she did not have the test booklets. Grant
emphasized several times she was alone when she cheated and that she did not erase answers in
front of anyone and that no one directed her to cheat.
5. Nettie Walker (Teacher)
Nettie Walker admitted to cheating on the CRCT. She gave her students the answers to
CRCT questions in 2009 and in previous years. Walker walked around the classroom during the
test and when she noticed that a majority of the class was getting a particular question wrong, she
would give the whole class the answer. Walker thinks that she provided five to seven answers
per section. She also admitted to changing one answer in 2009. One student had a "meltdown"
during the test and while Walker was erasing stray marks in the media center she reviewed that
student's test. She saw one answer that she believed the student knew but had wrong, and she
changed the student's answer. When the teachers erased stray marks in the media center, they
had both the test booklets and the answer sheets available.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
/. Dr. Selena Dukes-Walton (Principal)
Principal Dukes-Walton denied cheating or having knowledge of cheating. In her
interviews, she pointed out that Slater did not make AYP in 2009. She was unable to offer an
explanation for why the wrong-to-right erasures at her school were so high.
Principal Dukes-Walton observed the erasing of stray marks in the media center. She
claimed that test booklets were not available while the teachers erased stray marks.
She denied asking any teacher whether the investigators subpoenaed them. She claimed
that teachers told her when they had to be out of the school to meet with investigators because
she had to arrange for someone to watch their class.
2. Vanessa Jackson (Testing Coordinator)
Vanessa Jackson called all of the teachers to the media center by grade level to erase
stray marks. The teachers would check the tests of their own students and make sure the tests
were clear of stray marks. No one erased answers and no one ever told her that anyone was
erasing answers.
229
3. Wanda Harmon (Assistant Principal)
Wanda Harmon denied cheating or having knowledge of cheating.
4. Maxim Coleman fSRT-2 Proctor)
Maxine Coleman was assigned to Slater to observe the 2009 CRCT administration.
Coleman denied seeing anyone erase answers.
5. Akisha Graham (Teacher)
Akisha Graham was not implicated by anyone but the wrong-to-right erasure analysis
flagged three of her classes with standard deviations of 16, 17, and 17. When interviewed by a
GBI agent, she smirked and said that the interview was a waste of her time.
6. Janice Hicks (Teacher)
Schajuan Jones testified that Hicks witnessed Jones complain about Grant changing
answers in the media center. Hicks denied cheating; however, Hicks had the highest number of
wrong-to-right erasures in the school. She was flagged in the reading subject area with a
standard deviation of 3 1.9.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
There was cheating on the 2009 CRCT at Slater Elementary. Our conclusion is based on
the following evidence: (1) Principal Dukes-Walton put pressure on teachers to raise CRCT
scores; (2) teachers erased "stray marks" in the media center and Nettie Walker and Ellen Grant
changed answers while "erasing stray marks"; (3) Ellen Grant let her students look up the
answers and change tests themselves; and (4) Schajuan Jones reported Grant for changing
answers and no action was taken. This evidence leads us to conclude that many teachers at
Slater altered test documents.
Teachers changed answers in the media center while they claimed to be erasing stray
marks. Ellen Grant admitted that she changed answers in her classroom. We believe Grant
changed answers in the media center in the presence of Maxine Coleman, Vanessa Jackson,
Janice Hicks, and Jermaine Ausmore. We conclude that Janice Hicks erased students' answers,
too, due to the statistical improbability of 31.8 standard deviations from the state norm,
combined with the testimony of Schajuan Jones.
Testing Coordinator Vanessa Jackson knew the teachers were changing answers. The
cheating occurred in the media center, when only four to six people were present. With such a
small group in the media center at a time, Jackson would have noticed someone erasing answers.
We conclude that Principal Dukes-Walton knew or should have known there was
cheating at this school. She created an environment in which teachers felt pressured by ridicule
to ensure that their students' scores improved. She also put memorandums in each teachers'
testing materials to inform them of how many students must meet or exceed expectations. As
230
one teacher stated, teachers could not ensure how students did on the test once the test started,
unless they cheated.
It is our conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence obtained in this
investigation as to system wide cheating on the 2009 CRCT, that Principal Dukes-Walton failed
to adequately supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is
responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009
CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
231
The table below shows the number of students from your class that MUST EXCEED standards on the 2009 - 2010 CRCT in
Reading, EngHsh/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Georgia 5* Grade Writing Assessment. .
It also shows the number of students we can afford to have absent 10 or more days from your class.
It will take EVERYONE working TOGETHER, EVERYDAY to make the above headline a REALITY!!!
Reading
English/
Language Arts
Mathematics
Science
Social Studies
Writing
Attendance
Grade
Does
Exceed
Does
Exceed
Does
Exceed
Does
Exceed
Does
Exceed
Does Not
Exceed
Students
Level
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Meet
Absent 10
Meet
Meet
Meet
Meet
Meet
Days of More
3H
4
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
N/A
N/A
2
CSJ
B
t" ""V
-ftis cW*r! * ■ A: ,
> ^^aSfr. Suture: Mftv ^JjM
Date:
Principal's Signature:^
Date;
■4#Wf each kwrt extern,
Together Everyone Achieves More
CD
i
JO
THOMASVILLE HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1 820 Henry Thomas Dr. SE Principal: Janice Kelsey SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Testing Coordinator: Tracey Fisher
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Thomasville Heights Elementary in 2008 and 2009.
Thirty-two people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Two teachers
confessed to cheating. Cheating at Thomasville Heights is evidenced by a high number of
flagged classrooms, confessions and witness testimony. Principal Janice Kelsey failed to
properly monitor the 2009 CRCT
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
39.1
7.2
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
34
5
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number" of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
15(11)
3(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
7.1
6.3
High Flagged Standard Deviation
14.6
9.6
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.2
233
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
BEAUFORT
1 RD
6.592096573
BEAUFORT
1 LA
12.56542713
BEAUFORT
1 MA
7.893137848
COHEN
1 RD
6.294592751
COHEN
1 LA
5.940398975
COHEN
1 MA
5.116794989
MCKEITHEN
1 MA
4.886755241
NICKOLICH
1 MA
3.285995043
OLIVER
1 LA
4.546905732
DALIDE
2 RD
5.285191345
DALIDE
2 LA
5.396477417
DALIDE
2 MA
4.29678822
SWAIN P
2 RD
8.79181171
SWAIN P
2 LA
10.23762982
SWArNP
2 MA
6.088495889
WALLER
2 RD
5.856558037
WALLER
2 LA
7.920618241
WALLER
2 MA
9.078163504
HUBBARD
3 RD
9.676394581
HUBBARD
3 LA
6.743629425
HUBBARD
3 MA
4.751842097
BROWN
4 RD
3.111356934
SAVAGE
4 RD
10.38147811
SAVAGE
4 MA
10.73819265
BIDULESCU
5 RD
12.79621953
BIDULESCU
5 LA
14.64533258
BIDULESCU
5 MA
3.152159194
DAY
5 RD
4.320453585
DAY
5 MA
5.589028002
FORRER
5 RD
8.890145458
FORRER
5 LA
6.260625917
FORRER
5 MA
11.36464914
THOMAS VILLE
5 LA
3.707339187
THOMAS VILLE
5 MA
5.589336097
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Thomasville Heights
Elementary School was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately
reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 39. 1% for the 2009 CRCT.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only 15 schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Thomasville Heights.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
significantly from 39.1% to 7.2%.
Fourth, of the 34 flagged classrooms at Thomasville Heights, 25 (74% of the total) had
standard deviations that exceeded five, and seven classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations.
At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
234
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Thomasville Heights.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures, 68% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 39.1% of the
total classrooms in the school.
Last, two teachers admitted to cheating. Two first grade teachers confessed to prompting
their students in the classroom. One teacher walked around while testing and if several students
missed a question, she might rephrase the question and prompt students to remember what they
were taught in class. Another teacher admitted to reading the questions aloud more than twice
and pointing to questions she noticed students got wrong and telling them to re-read it. These
teachers believe that their actions caused their students to erase and change answers from wrong
to right.
B. Narrative
Teachers who cheated, and others interviewed, cited the intense pressure they felt to
increase test scores and make targets. Principal Janice Kelsey had been on several PDPs and felt
pressure from her SRT Executive Director. Teachers were threatened with PDPs and job loss.
Principal Kelsey and Testing Coordinator Tracey Fisher allowed teachers to pick up tests as early
as 7:30 a.m. and keep them late. Stray marks could be erased by teachers in their classrooms or
in the conference room. No one seemed clear on the proper policy.
APS was alerted to cheating on the 2009 CRCT based on events in 2008. Between March
and May 2008, APS's Office of Internal Resolution received allegations of cheating and
workplace improprieties involving Principal Janice Kelsey. The cheating allegations stemmed
from an anonymous phone call in April 2008 to the Georgia Department of Education (DOE).
The caller alleged that Principal Kelsey was putting extreme pressure on teachers to meet targets
and threatening to place teachers not meeting targets on a PDP. The caller also alleged that
Principal Kelsey told teachers that "hints" should be provided to students during CRCT testing.
The cheating allegations were investigated by an external investigator, Stan Williams, who
conducted interviews of staff at Thomasville Heights and submitted reports of his findings to
OIRin May 2008.
The 2008 external investigation looked into other allegations of testing-related
improprieties that had occurred at Thomasville Heights. One allegation was that Principal
Kelsey went into teacher Emily Cohen's first grade classroom during testing and administered
part of the test. Cohen was having difficulty controlling the students' behavior during the test.
On the second day Principal Kelsey selected certain students from Cohen's class, and some from
other classes, and tested them separately in Cohen's classroom. Principal Kelsey took over the
reading of different test subjects, at times reading too quickly, or re-reading the questions more
than two times. Cohen stated that Principal Kelsey also leaned over students and pointed to the
test book, but was not sure she was pointing at answers.
235
There was a missing answer sheet on the second day of CRCT testing in 2008. Fourth
grade teacher Giselle Brown had turned in 19 answer sheets on Friday, but on the next Monday,
she received back only 18 answer sheets. Additionally, her tests booklets were in a different
order from when she turned them in. The missing answer sheet was reported to Principal Kelsey,
and Testing Coordinator Tracey Fisher. After an extensive search, the answer sheet could not be
found and the matter was reported to Cari Ryan in APS Research, Planning and Accountability.
Days later, the missing answer sheet was found by Giselle Brown under a bookcase in her
classroom. She was unable to explain how that had occurred.
Principal Kelsey' s car was seen at the school on Saturday of the weekend the answer
sheet was missing in 2008. At least one witness mentioned that other teachers' cars had been
seen that day along with Principal Kelsey's, including Raine Hackler, Stacey Brundage, and
Makisha Boddie. Some witnesses questioned had difficulty recalling whether the sighting of
Principal Kelsey's car happened during the 2008 or 2009 CRCT. The OIR report indicates that
the alleged sighting was reported in 2008.
Williams' report found that all allegations of cheating and testing improprieties by
Principal Kelsey "had no merit." In a separate report, Williams found "no evidence" that Kelsey
threatened teachers to meet targets or be placed on PDPs, or that she instructed teachers to give
hints or answers during CRCT testing. In a June 23, 2008 letter, Superintendent Beverly Hall
informed Principal Kelsey that the investigations were complete and the allegations found to be
unsubstantiated.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Jennitra Oliver (Teacher)
Jennitra Oliver admitted that during testing she walked around and if several students
missed a question she rephrased the question and told the students to remember what was taught
in class. Oliver believes that accounted for the erasures in her class. She denied giving children
the answers and denied erasing answers. She erased stray marks in her classroom and may have
erased them in the conference room. Testing Coordinator Tracey Fisher was present in the
conference room when stray marks were erased. Oliver could not recall if other teachers erased
in the conference room. No one instructed her to erase stray marks in her classroom or the
conference room. She erased the marks because she knew they were picked up by the scoring
machine.
2. Theresa Nickolich (Teacher)
Theresa Nickolich admitted to prompting her students during testing by pointing to
questions that she noticed were incorrect and telling the student to re-read the question. She read
the question more than twice but denied telling students the answer. Nickolich recalled that
teachers were instructed by Testing Coordinator Tracey Fisher to erase stray marks after testing
each day. She cleaned the stray marks in her classroom, and could not recall whether teachers
cleaned stray marks together in the conference room. She denies changing any answers.
Nickolich stated that there was pressure to raise scores from Principal Kelsey, who was
being pressured herself. Everything in APS was driven by the test scores.
236
3. Giselle Brown (Teacher)
Giselle Brown was a fourth grade teacher in 2009. She recalls the incident of the missing
answer sheet that was investigated in 2008. She said that the Friday after testing began she took
her test booklets and answer sheets to the conference room as usual. She and the testing
coordinator, Tracey Fisher, each counted 19 booklets and 19 answer sheets. Monday morning
Brown went to the conference room to pick up her tests for the last day of test administration.
There were 19 test booklets but only 18 answer sheets. Brown and Fisher searched everywhere
but could not find it. Brown also noticed that her test booklets were out of order. She knew that
when she turned them in on Friday they were in alphabetical order. Brown found the missing
answer sheet days later under a bookcase. She felt that it had to have been placed there long
after the answer sheet was noted as missing because it could not have fallen in that spot. Brown
believed that someone went through her students answer sheets and changed answers from
wrong to right.
Brown stated that there is tremendous pressure on teachers to meet targets. It was "all
about the numbers." Principal Kelsey was no longer at the school but Brown said the current
principal was also focused on the numbers and ruled with a "heavy hand." She believed, and it
was obvious to her, there was cheating at Thomasville Heights. She had several fourth grade
students who could barely read simple sentences and yet did well on the CRCT.
4. Makisha Boddie (Literacy Coach)
Makisha Boddie was the literacy coach in 2008 and left Thomasville Heights after the
2007-2008 school year. During the 2008 CRCT, Boddie was a hall monitor. Teachers were able
to pick up their tests as early as they wanted. The testing coordinator, Tracey Fisher, would sign
them out. Boddie recalled the incident of the answer sheet that went missing over the weekend
of the 2008 testing. It was eventually found under a bookcase in Giselle Brown's classroom and
Boddie recalled that there was something peculiar about how it was found. Boddie discussed the
matter with Principal Kelsey, who admitted that she was at the school over the weekend that the
answer sheet went missing. Principal Kelsey stated that she went to school to clean her office.
The administrators placed a lot of pressure on teachers to score high on the CRCT.
Teachers were threatened with PDPs if their test scores were low. She heard Principal Kelsey
say "if I am going to be placed on a PDP for low test scores, then so will you." SRT-2 Executive
Director Michael Pitts told teachers that they would be fired if targets were not met. Boddie was
surprised that some students passed the CRCT. As the literacy coach, she knew certain students
whose ability did not match their high test scores.
5. Christopher Forrer (Teacher)
Christopher Forrer was a fifth grade teacher in 2009 and was flagged in all subjects for
high wrong-to-right erasures. He was not surprised by the number of answers changed in his
class and thought there was cheating at the school. Teachers were under so much pressure that
they likely changed answers themselves. Forrer thought that administrators changed answers as
well. He cited numerous testing violations and irregularities. For example, during the 2009
CRCT, his students told him on the third day of testing that their answers had been erased and
237
corrections made. Forrer looked at the answer sheets and noticed numerous answers had been
changed. He thinks there was "funny business" going on with the tests and that someone
changed answers from wrong to right. Teachers could pick up their tests as early as they wanted.
Teachers could be alone with the test materials for as long as an hour before testing started, and
could bring the tests back late "with no questions asked." The lack of protocols was
"deliberate."
6. Deborah Clements (Teacher)
During the 2009 CRCT, one of her students raised her hand after testing had begun and
informed Deborah Clements that two or three pages of her test book had the answers already
marked in it. Clements reported it to Testing Coordinator Tracey Fisher. The student was given
a new test book, and a few days later the incident was written up and also reported to APS by
Clements and Fisher via speakerphone from Fisher's office. (Fisher denied this incident ever
occurred, or if it had, it was not during the CRCT.) Clements was interviewed again, at which
time she confirmed that it was the CRCT.
Clements suspects someone changed answers on the CRCT. She had students from lower
grades who scored well on the CRCT, but lacked basic skills and could not read.
Clements was reassigned to teach second grade. She believes this was a demotion for
low test scores. There was tremendous pressure exerted to ensure students performed well on the
CRCT. Principal Kelsey would come back from SRT meetings and "rake the teachers over the
coals" for low test scores. Test scores were tied to evaluations.
D. Testimony of Additional Witnesses
/. Stacey Brundage (Teacher)
Stacey Brundage left Thomasville Heights in 2008 and was not present for the 2009
CRCT testing. She denies being at the school on the Saturday of 2009 CRCT testing as some
had reported. She thinks Lisa Hubbard may have cheated because her scores were always higher
than average.
2. Ashley Beaufort (Teacher)
Ashley Beaufort said that Principal Kelsey entered her class during 2009 CRCT testing,
pointed to questions, and stood beside some of the students to get them to focus.
3. Susan Young (School Secretary)
Susan Young was the school secretary in 2009. The tests were kept in the vault where
student records were kept. Only she and Principal Kelsey had the key to the vault. She knew that
in 2008, an answer sheet went missing over a weekend and knew Principal Kelsey was there that
weekend.
238
4.
Lisa Hubbard (Teacher)
Lisa Hubbard was flagged for high wrong-to-right erasures in all subjects. She stated that
she had been suspended on allegations she had struck a student. She did not plan on returning to
work for APS. There was a lot of pressure to meet targets, especially from the SRT directors and
other school administrators. She denied cheating.
Valerie Oliver was a fourth grade teacher in 2008. During the 2008 CRCT, she picked up
her students' test booklets on the Monday following the first week of testing and found that they
were out of order. She told the testing coordinator, Tracey Fisher, who stated that it must have
been a result of how Fisher had picked them up and handed them to Oliver.
E. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
Janice Kelsey was principal of Thomasville Heights Elementary School in 2009 and
retired after the 2008-2009 school year. She presently works part-time at a charter school run by
former Thomasville Heights teacher Raine Hackler. Kelsey was placed on a PDP for her last
two or three years by Michael Pitts for failure to meet targets and "other reasons." She and Pitts
did not get along. They had different management philosophies and styles. Principal Kelsey
inherited a number of disgruntled employees who wrote an anonymous letter to Pitts about her.
Pitts came to the school and conducted a survey of the employees with regard to her leadership
style. She believed there was pressure in the system but tried not to pass it on. She denied
telling teachers she would put them on a PDP for low test scores. Teachers who said that about
her "were lying."
Principal Kelsey recalled the OER investigations in 2008 and the missing answer sheet.
Giselle Brown found the missing answer sheet behind a shelf when she was cleaning her
classroom at the end of the school year. Principal Kelsey believes that the answer sheet fell
behind the shelf before Brown turned them in and that her instructional coaches, Stacey
Brundage and Makisha Boddie, miscounted the tests.
Regarding her car being seen at the school over the 2008 CRCT weekend when the
answer sheet was missing, Principal Kelsey recalled that she went to the school that Saturday,
which she usually did not do during testing week. She had her grandsons with her but could not
recall her reason for going to the school that weekend. She does not recall how long she was at
the school, and denies that any staff members were present.
Principal Kelsey had no idea why people would suspect her of doing anything to the tests.
She said if she was going to cheat she would have done it well enough to make targets. Principal
Kelsey denied going to the school on the weekend of the CRCT in 2009. She did not remember
going into Emily Cohen's class during the 2008 CRCT and denied re-reading questions to
Cohen's students.
5.
Valerie Oliver (Teacher)
1.
Janice Kelsey (Principal)
239
Principal Kelsey was surprised at the high number of flagged classes at Thomasville
Heights. She had no explanation for the erasures and did not know of anyone who would have
cheated.
2. Tracey Fisher (Testing Coordinator)
Tracey Fisher was the testing coordinator in 2009 and recalled having one OIR complaint
filed against her, which resulted in a suspension. She gave the wrong tests to a class of PEC
students, who were all supposed to have the same version. By the time she discovered they had
the wrong version, students had begun marking on the answer sheets. Fisher erased the answer
sheets and returned them to the teacher with new booklets. She stated she was not trying to
cheat.
There was a lot of pressure on teachers to raise test scores. Former Principal Janice
Kelsey and current Principal Charles Penn threatened to put teachers on PDPs for low test scores.
She recalled the incident of the missing test answer sheet from Ms. Brown's class. Fisher said
she counted the sheets and there were 19 sheets turned in on Friday but on Monday they only
found 18. She recalled that Brown mentioned that her test booklets were out of order. Fisher
suspects that Principal Kelsey took the answer sheets to change answers and forgot to put one
back. She was told by Makisha Boddie that Principal Kelsey' s car was at the school on the
weekend that the answer sheet went missing.
Fisher does not recall an incident during the 2009 CRCT administration concerning a test
booklet given to one of Deborah Clements' students that had answers already marked. She stated
that if such an incident occurred, it happened with a different type of test where the booklets are
reused, and not the CRCT. Fisher said stray marks were erased in a conference room. In a
previous interview, Fisher denied that stray marks were erased. Teachers were allowed to pick
up their tests as early as 7:30 a.m. for the CRCT. She was following the directive of Principal
Kelsey. Fisher was aware that early pick-up would provide teachers with a significant amount of
time alone with the test documents.
F. Other Evidence
• In 2008-2009, Thomasville Heights met AYP.
• In 2009-20 10, Thomasville Heights did not meet AYP.
• Thomasville Heights did not meet its district targets in 2007, 2008, 2009,
and 2010.
• One second grade teacher flagged in all subjects in 2009 was flagged
again in all subjects in 2010, with even higher standard deviations for
wrong-to-right erasures.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that cheating occurred at Thomasville Heights on the CRCT in 2009 and in
other years. Jennitra Oliver prompted her students to change answers from wrong to right by
240
rephrasing questions students had missed and telling students to remember what she had taught
them in class. Theresa Nickolich admitted to prompting students by pointing to questions she
knew they had missed and telling them to re-read it, and by re-reading questions.
We also conclude that Testing Coordinator Tracey Fisher either facilitated or participated
in cheating in 2008 and 2009.
In summary, we find Jennitra Oliver, Theresa Nickolich, Janice Kelsey and Tracey Fisher
were involved in cheating on the 2009 CRCT.
Principal Janice Kelsey failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing activities and for
ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper securing for the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this investigation, that
Principal Kelsey failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing
activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying,
misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
241
FICKETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
3935 Rux Road SW Principal: Dr. Anthony Dorsey SRT- 1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, Georgia 30331 Testing Coordinator: Angela Thomas
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Fickett Elementary in 2009. Thirty-nine people were
interviewed at Fickett, some more than once. Two teachers confessed to cheating. Cheating at
Fickett is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, confessions and witness testimony.
Principal Anthony Dorsey failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
51.4
9.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
37
7
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
17(13)
7
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
7.0
3.9
High Flagged Standard Deviation
20
5.5
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.0
242
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
NJIE
1 RD
5.613835169
NJIE
1 LA
5.247525305
NJIE
1 MA
3.783090582
PARKER
1 RD
3.458742598
PARKER
1 LA
3.244756486
ROMENESKO
1 RD
3.299238647
LITTLE
2 LA
5.068094291
LITTLE
2 MA
6.779296001
MARTIN
2 LA
6.876834481
MARTIN
2 MA
5.284125896
TAYLOR
2 LA
4.72562397
TICKLES
2 RD
5.9150809
TICKLES
2 LA
4.758242311
TICKLES
2 MA
5.060000744
W ATKINS
2 LA
4.618315338
WATKINS
2 MA
8.60631 1776
CARTER
3 RD
6.82539656
CARTER
3 LA
4.924853502
CARTER
3 MA
6.605357541
KING
3 RD
3.779877173
KING
3 LA
3.903783686
REDD
3 LA
3.630615899
YOLING
3 RD
16.47921964
YOUNG
3 LA
10.3293602
YOUNG
3 MA
8.411153143
MILES
4 RD
17.71092772
MILES
4 LA
9.970842028
MILES
4 MA
8.700386529
SCOTT
4 RD
6.378501335
SCOTT
4 LA
5.402838655
SCOTT
4 MA
5.193382083
WHEELER
4 RD
7.988916116
WHEELER
4 LA
3.140110356
WHEELER
4 MA
4.844024558
GRAY
5 RD
8.993842585
WII -BOURN
5 RD
19.98720414
WILBOURN
5 MA
14.53405541
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Fickett Elementary School was
not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 51.4% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only 20 schools in APS with a higher percentage that year.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT
only six schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Fickett Elementary School.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
significantly from 51.4% to 9.3%.
243
Fourth, of the 37 flagged classrooms at Fickett Elementary School, 24 (64.8% of the
total) had standard deviations that exceeded five, and five classrooms exceeded ten standard
deviations. At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred
without adult intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard
deviations the probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations
from the state mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad
scale at Fickett.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Fickett, 72.3% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
51.4% of the total classrooms in the school.
In addition, Principal Dorsey created an environment that encouraged cheating. He
informed teachers of the exact number of students that needed to meet expectations on the CRCT
to make APS targets. He was pressured by SRT-1 Executive Director, Dr. Sharon Davis-
Williams to make targets, and he in turn pressured his teachers.
B. Narrative
At least two teachers cheated by prompting students to erase and change their own
answers. The number of classes flagged across all subject areas, and every grade level, is
consistent with the pattern at schools system-wide where teachers confessed to organized
cheating by erasing.
Principal Anthony Dorsey pressured teachers to improve test scores and meet targets,
threatening those who did not meet expectations with PDPs. Teachers were anxious about the
pressure to raise scores and about the new, more rigorous evaluation process put in place. Those
who confessed to cheating felt it was necessary to keep their jobs.
Principal Dorsey says he had the only key to the area where the tests were stored. When
Testing Coordinator Angela Thomas needed access, Dorsey unlocked the door for her. The door
locked automatically upon closing.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Karen Wilbourn (Teacher)
Karen Wilbourn was a fifth grade teacher and confessed to cheating on the CRCT in
2009.
Wilbourn admitted that she and her proctor, Wanda Patterson, gave students the answers
during CRCT testing in 2009. She stated that the proctor assisted her in making answer keys,
particularly for the math and reading portions of the test. She and Patterson would use the
answer keys to provide students with correct answers. She stated that 2009 was the only year she
cheated. Principal Dorsey told teachers that they would be put on a PDP if they did not have
enough students meeting and exceeding expectations on the CRCT. She believes Principal
Dorsey knew there was cheating. He made it clear that they needed to meet targets.
244
2. Charlene Martin (Teacher)
Charlene Martin was a second grade teacher in 2009. She confessed to using voice
inflection to prompt students when reading the questions and answers on the CRCT. If she saw
that a student answered a question incorrectly, she told the student to go back and check it.
Martin's motivation for cheating was the pressure she felt from the administration, and because
she wanted to keep her job. There was a lot of pressure on teachers to have their classes meet
AYP and APS targets. Charlene Martin was told by students during her first year at Fickett that
teachers had helped them in the past during testing. She wished she had reported that
information to APS.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Anthony Dorsey (Principal)
We interviewed Principal Anthony Dorsey on three occasions. He was represented by
counsel each time. He became principal of Fickett in 2007-2008. Principal Dorsey admitted that
he informed teachers how many students needed to pass the test in order to meet their targets.
He was very knowledgeable about the data concerning targets and was interested in raising the
math scores at Fickett. He was the only one with access to the room where the tests were kept,
and unlocked the door for the testing coordinator, Angela Thomas. He stated that Thomas
secured the door as she left the room. He did not believe that cheating occurred but could not
explain the high erasures at his school.
Principal Dorsey stated in his first interview that he did not feel pressure to make targets
and did not understand why APS and teachers felt that "making the floor" at Convocation was
important. He admitted that Davis-Williams pushed targets and told him that his job was to
make targets. Fickett has never made targets under his leadership.
Tn his second interview, Principal Dorsey was asked to clarify his contradictory
statements concerning targets. He explained that he was concerned about student achievement
rather than meeting targets. In his third interview, Principal Dorsey refused to answer questions
concerning why there were such high wrong-to-right erasures at Fickett in 2009. Through his
counsel, he stated that he already answered that question and had nothing more to say.
2. Wanda Patterson (Teacher)
Wanda Patterson was a teacher at Fickett in 2009. She taught small groups of gifted
children in several subject areas in grades one though five. Patterson served as a proctor during
CRCT testing. She said Karen Wilbourn would go to particular students and point to the answer.
This caused the students to erase and change the answers. Patterson denied that she also pointed
out answers to students.
3. Angela Thomas (Testing Coordinator)
Angela Thomas was the testing coordinator at Fickett in 2009. She stated that Principal
Dorsey had the key card to the room where the tests were kept and access to the school building
after hours and on weekends. Dessie Hardwick, Mary King and Assistant Principal Shirley
245
Smith helped Thomas administer the test. Thomas never erased anything on students' tests or
felt pressure to make targets. She stated she was never told that a particular student must pass the
CRCT.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Charlene Martin, Karen Wilbourn, and Wanda Patterson cheated on the
2009 CRCT. Based on the statistical evidence and the evidence we have found at schools with
similar statistical data, we believe that the flagged teachers at Fickett cheated in the same
manner. However, we lack sufficient evidence to determine which additional teachers cheated.
It is our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation, that Principal Dorsey failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT and adequately
supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and he is responsible for,
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
246
HUTCHINSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
650 Cleveland Avenue Principal: Dr. Rebecca Dashiell-Mitchell SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Testing Coordinator: David Brown
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Hutchinson Elementary in 2009. Twenty-one people
at this school were interviewed, some more than once. Cheating at Hutchinson is evidenced by a
high number of flagged classrooms, a confession and witness testimony. Principal Rebecca
Dashiell-Mitchell failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
47
1.6
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
31
1
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
14(9)
1(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
8.1
3.6
High Flagged Standard Deviation
26.6
3.6
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.6
247
B. Flagged Classrooms
T> 1
1 eacners
Grade &
Ntanaara
Test
Deviation
T7T T TQ
T7T T JQ
1 T A
^ /1^/1 1 1/1 HOT
T7T T
1 A \ A
S.OOOoZOlO
£ /1Q1^9/119
liKrAn )l K r,
1 T A
1 1 ,A
1 (\ /1/11Q1£1Q
1 \J A
1 1VLA.
5.UJD / jdj / J
T A A/TT7C
T A H/fT7Q
J/AlvllJ/O
1 T A
T A 1\/TT7^
1 1\T A
1 i.zzUUuj Id
rrll_lJJ_Jx o
1 ur»
1 KU
& & 1 0 1 "7Q091
r FILL, J_Jx o
1 T A
£ 1/11 ^"70
PT-TTT T TPQ
1 MA
IZ.jjUU 1 j JO
1 T A
1 0©/1Q'7©<£/1'7
Z SSAJ
o.yj izuiyo
POT T f "if ' I."
1 T A
5. / j<szzuy /
POT T HPF
TATA
"7 IIQ^I /170/1
TT?T TTTT
1KU11 1
1 MA
Z lVL/\
zl 0Q818zlRQ£
WTT T TC
Z KiJ
/I 1 /1/1/10"7/1<^7
lVI.fi. 1 illo
3 RD
zl 0S0SSS88Q
4-.UJUJJJ007
NEAL
3 RD
A QS9401d17
^t.y jz^tu jfj /
STROZIER
3RD
8.495768181
STROZIER
3 MA
3.172082989
PATTERSON
4 RD
3.069905974
PATTERSON
4 LA
4.069629285
PATTERSON
4 MA
3.572792509
SWEDARSKY
4 RD
9.255002155
SWEDARSKY
4 LA
7.029930938
SWEDARSKY
4 MA
7.543710616
NGUYEN
5 RD
26.55535419
NGUYEN
5 LA
9.809644757
NGUYEN
5 MA
24.91448727
IH. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts that point to the conclusion that Hutchinson Elementary School
was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 47% for the 2009 CRCT.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only seven schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Hutchinson Elementary
School.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
dramatically from 47% to 1.6%.
Fourth, of the 31 flagged classrooms at Hutchinson Elementary School, 21 (68% of the
total) had standard deviations that exceeded five, and five classrooms exceeded ten standard
deviations. At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred
without adult intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard
159379.3
248
deviations the probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations
from the state mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad
scale at this school.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures, 72.1% were produced by the flagged classrooms, which account for only 47% of the
total classrooms in the school.
Last, one teacher confessed to giving his students the answers while administering the
2009 CRCT. Teachers were surprised when low-performing students passed the test despite
their poor performance on benchmark tests and in the classroom.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
/. Hau Nsuven (Teacher)
Hau Nguyen admitted to cheating in 2009. Nguyen walked around the classroom during
the test and stood over his students while they answered questions. If the student answered
incorrectly, Nguyen would point to the right answer. He assisted students every fifth question or
so.
Yolanda Udoh proctored for Nguyen's class during the 2009 CRCT. Nguyen believes
Udoh must have noticed what he was doing. She did not come back after the fourth day of
testing and he does not know whether she reported him for cheating.
When The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published the erasure analysis done by GOSA,
Principal Rebecca Dashiell-Mitchell gave teachers a questionnaire that asked them to explain
their high number of wrong-to-right erasures. Nguyen filled out the questionnaire and was then
called to Principal Dashiell-Mitchell' s office to meet with her to discuss his response. Testing
Coordinator David Brown was present when Nguyen and Principal Dashiell-Mitchell met.
2. Marly Gregoire (Teacher)
When The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published the results of the wrong-to-right
erasure analysis, Dashiell-Mitchell placed a one-page questionnaire in each teacher's box. The
questionnaire asked the flagged teachers to write any reasons why their classroom had so many
wrong-to-right erasures. Principal Dashiell-Mitchell then met with each teacher to discuss the
erasure analysis and their explanations.
Gregoire was surprised that some of her students passed the CRCT despite indications
that they would not pass. She suspected that Nguyen cheated because his students achieved near
perfect pass rates on the test.
3. Yolanda Udoh (Proctor)
Yolanda Udoh was the proctor of Hau Nguyen's classroom during the 2009 CRCT.
Udoh denied observing Nguyen assist students by giving them answers to the 2009 CRCT.
159379.3
249
4. David Brown (Testing Coordinator)
David Brown gave the investigators the form that Principal Dashiell-Mitchell gave to the
flagged teachers requesting an explanation for the flags. Principal Dashiell-Mitchell told Brown
that the teachers did not write on the forms and that she did not collect them.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Dr. Rebecca Dashiell-Mitchell (Principal)
Principal Dashiell-Mitchell was interviewed at least two times over the course of this
investigation. At her first interview, Dashiell-Mitchell denied conducting her own investigation
and denied distributing a questionnaire regarding erasures on the 2009 CRCT. When a GBI
agent showed her a copy of the questionnaire obtained from a teacher, Principal Dashiell-
Mitchell remembered handing it out. She said that she could not provide a copy of the answered
questionnaires because the teachers did not actually write answers, they just met to discuss them.
When we interviewed Principal Dashiell-Mitchell she remembered both that she issued
questionnaires (she said that she denied it to the GBI because they called it a "survey" and she
called it an "audit") and that the teachers filled out the answers. However, she was unable to
give them to us because she did not keep them.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that teacher Hau Nguyen cheated on the 2009 CRCT. Based on the
statistical evidence and the evidence we have found at schools with similar statistical data, we
believe that other flagged teachers cheated in the same manner. However, we lack sufficient
evidence to determine which additional teachers cheated.
We also find that Principal Dashiell-Mitchell failed in her ultimate responsibility for
supervising testing activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security
for, the 2009 CRCT. It is our conclusion from the statistical data and other evidence secured in
this investigation that Principal Dashiell-Mitchell failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT and
adequately supervise testing activities. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying,
misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
159379.3
250
CAPITOL VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1442 Metropolitan Parkway Principal: Arlene Snowden SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30310 Testing Coordinator: Trennis Harvey
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Capitol View Elementary in 2009. Thirty-seven
people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating is evidenced by a high
number of flagged classrooms. Principal Arlene Snowden falsified attendance records in 2009
and in other years, and failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
70.8
19.0
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
34
8
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
12(11)
4(3)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
11.4
4
High Flagged Standard Deviation
20.3
6.2
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
4.7
3.2
251
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
JONES
1 RD
7.203792952
JONES
1 LA
6.795730409
JONES
1 MA
13.17567274
ROBERTSON
1 RD
12.6333877
ROBERTSON
1 LA
13.17067211
ROBERTSON
1 MA
13.88294262
LONGINO
2 RD
5.084938216
LONGINO
2 LA
9.127838661
LONGINO
2 MA
9.654566353
MORELAND
2 LA
4.892918323
GOODMAN
3 RD
10.66126736
GOODMAN
3 LA
12.07847995
GOODMAN
3 MA
11.56960919
JACKSON
3RD
9.740819486
JACKSON
3 LA
9.605708465
JACKSON
3 MA
10.38831197
ROSS
3 RD
12.0873275
ROSS
3 LA
15.20524426
ROSS
3 MA
20.34651763
HUMMINGS
4 RD
17.19047309
HUMMINGS
4 LA
11.5437338
HUMMINGS
4 MA
17.15986815
WRIGHT
4 RD
8.291637643
WRIGHT
4 LA
4.705049781
WRIGHT
4 MA
9.624676572
BENNETT
5 RD
13.98962206
BENNETT
5 LA
8.066369977
BENNETT
5 MA
16.87181048
PIRTLE
5 RD
16.51922992
PIRTLE
5 LA
8.213768677
PIRTLE
5 MA
12.10537845
SMILEY
5 RD
14.19492007
SMILEY
5 LA
6.866148885
SMILEY
5 MA
13.87975717
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several significant facts which point to the conclusion that Capitol View
Elementary School was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately
reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 70.8% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only six schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only one school had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
from 70.8% to 19%.
Fourth, of the 34 flagged classrooms at Capitol View, 32 (94% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and 20 classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
252
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations, the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Capitol View.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Capitol View, 94% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for
70.8% of the total classrooms in the school.
Last, Principal Snowden stated that erasures could be explained by teaching strategies.
Capitol View teaches its children to go back and check their work, and erase answers that may be
incorrect. Principal Snowden provided no reason why this method - common throughout the
country - produced significantly more wrong-to-right erasures at Capitol View than most schools
in Georgia. When asked if teachers changed answers at her command, Principal Snowden stated
"Did cheating happen? I don't know, I didn't do it, I know that," and that she "can't make
anyone do anything unless I have a gun to their heads, adults are going to be adults."
B. Narrative
Capitol View had extremely high numbers of wrong-to-right erasures on the 2009 CRCT,
particularly in the first, third, fourth, and fifth grades. Multiple teachers discussed students who
lacked the skills to meet expectations on the 2009 CRCT, but met or exceeded expectations.
Multiple teachers testified that Principal Snowden placed great pressure on them to return high
scores on the CRCT.
Corlis Robertson provided an explanation for the high number of wrong-to-right erasures
in the first grade. No explanation was provided for the high erasures in the third, fourth, and
fifth grades.
At least one teacher acknowledged that cheating occurred on the 2009 CRCT. Principal
Snowden directed an office worker to falsify attendance records.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Tiffany Kelley (Teacher)
Tiffany Kelley stated that teachers did not have enough time during the testing period to
change the number of answers that were changed on the 2009 CRCT. Kelly believes that none
of the flagged teachers would have assisted Principal Snowden in changing CRCT answer sheets
because of the lack of a close relationship with her.
253
2. Marcus Goodman (Teacher)
When shown the 2009 CRCT erasure data for Capitol View, Marcus Goodman agreed
that cheating must have occurred. Goodman denied changing any answers, but had no
explanation for the high number of erasures on his students' answer sheets.
3. April Gomez-McMillian (Teacher)
April Gomez-McMillian did not administer the 2009 CRCT to any students, but served as
a hall monitor. She described the pressure placed on teachers by Principal Snowden to achieve
high CRCT scores. "Making the floor" was very important to Principal Snowden. Principal
Snowden and Trennis Harvey analyzed the APS targets and informed the teachers how many of
their students could fail to meet expectations on the CRCT. When CRCT scores were
announced, Principal Snowden called all teachers into a meeting and displayed the scores.
Principal Snowden praised and applauded the teachers whose students met APS targets.
4. Cor lis Robertson (Teacher)
Corlis Robertson denied any knowledge of cheating on the 2009 CRCT. She testified
that she and Kimberly Jones participated in a pilot teaching program in 2009. The assessments
in the teaching model all required students to select multiple correct answers. She gave the
following example: the test question asks the student to select all words below that have the
"long e" sound in them. Two or three of the answer choices would contain the "long e" sound,
and the students were required to select all correct answers to receive full credit for the question.
Robertson explained that although the 2009 CRCT required students to select only one correct
answer, the first grade students were confused and often selected more than one answer. She had
to repeatedly instruct students to select only the best answer, and to erase all incorrect answers.
Only the first grade teachers participated in this program in 2009.
5. Michael Ross (Teacher)
Michael Ross stated that the APS target system is unfair to children. He attempted to get
extra help for students who struggled, but not qualify for extra assistance because their CRCT
scores were too high.
APS referred Ross to the Georgia Professional Standards Commission for having a high
"Caveon Index." The first time he received notification that he was under suspicion for cheating
was when he received notice from the PSC. Ross was never interviewed by the Blue Ribbon
Commission or anyone from APS. He stated that he never cheated, was never asked to cheat,
and had no knowledge of cheating on the CRCT.
Ross stated that he saw a large decrease in Capitol View students exceeding expectations
on the 2010 CRCT as opposed to the 2009 CRCT.
254
D.
Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1.
Trennis Harvey (Testing Coordinator)
Trennis Harvey stated that during the 2009 CRCT testing window, Principal Snowden
only worked until lunch due to health issues. Harvey stated that he had a spare key to
Snowden' s office, and only he and Snowden possessed keys. Snowden left the building as soon
as the tests were returned to her office, and locked her office before she left. Snowden always
instructed Harvey that "she wanted to be the one to open her office and the one to be the last one
to lock it to make sure everything was secured."
Trennis Harvey stated that if adults changed CRCT answers, he had no knowledge of it,
and denied any unethical behavior on his part. When asked if Principal Snowden may have
changed answers, Harvey replied "Well, I can only say 100% for myself. But what I will say is
that she never gave me any inkling that it was occurring, or that it could be occurring." He did
not believe Principal Snowden changed CRCT answer sheets.
Principal Snowden denied any knowledge of cheating on the CRCT in 2009 or any other
year. Capitol View never had a testing irregularity under her tenure. She now works at the APS
central office, having been transferred after the Blue Ribbon Commission Report. She believes
that this investigation and the Blue Ribbon Commission were politically motivated, and that her
transfer from Capitol View by APS was politically motivated as well. She believes she was
targeted as a scapegoat by APS. She also stated that she does not "buy in to the whole erasure
bit," meaning that she does not believe the erasure analysis to be indicative of cheating.
Principal Snowden stated that erasures could be explained by teaching strategies. Capitol
View teaches its children to go back and check their work and erase answers that may be
incorrect. Snowden provided no reason why this method - common throughout the country -
produced significantly more wrong-to-right erasures at Capitol View than most schools in
Georgia. When asked if teachers changed answers at her command, Snowden stated, "Did
cheating happen? I don't know, I didn't do it, I know that." She further stated that she "can't
make anyone do anything unless I have a gun to their heads, adults are going to be adults."
Snowden acknowledged that only she and Trennis Harvey had keys to access the CRCT
materials in 2009.
E. Other Evidence
Michelle Redwine testified that Principal Snowden falsified attendance records. Redwine
worked in the front office and was responsible for creating folders for teachers that recorded
attendance and tardy records. She described one instance when such a folder was given to her by
Snowden empty of records. Snowden instructed Redwine to recreate the records. Redwine
understood that fewer absences should be shown. Unknown to Snowden, the teacher in question
kept a second set of records allowing Redwine to accurately recreate the records. Redwine stated
2.
Arlene Snowden (Principal)
1.
Michelle Redwine (Paraprofessional)
255
the accurately recreated records were also subsequently lost, and that multiple teachers voiced
complaints of similar issues with attendance records.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Principal Arlene Snowden falsified attendance records.
It is our conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation that Principal Snowden failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT and adequately
supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for,
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
256
TOWNS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
760 Bolton Road Principal: Carla Pettis SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30331 Testing Coordinator: Dr. Dorothy Keen
I. INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Towns Elementary School in 2009. Forty-two people
were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating is evidenced at Towns by high
numbers of flagged classrooms. Principal Carla Pettis falsified attendance records at this school
and failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
63.6
12.1
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
42
8
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
16(14)
5(3)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
8.6
4.0
High Flagged Standard Deviation
16.1
5.1
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.7
3.0
257
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
DYKES
1 RD
11.16874145
DYKES
1 LA
7.566044607
DYKES
1 MA
5.005126128
FOSTER
2 RD
5.675632634
FOSTER
2 LA
6.189106522
FOSTER
2 MA
5.6588774
NERO
2 MA
3.827116987
WADDEL
2 RD
4.639239175
WADDEL
2 LA
8.780351531
WADDEL
2 MA
8.470834727
CORBETT
3 RD
5.313970403
CORBETT
3 LA
6.839071744
CORBETT
3 MA
11.76788515
FARMER
3RD
8.495768181
FARMER
3 LA
4.072435023
FARMER
3 MA
7.523044579
NASH
3 RD
6.997372147
NASH
3 LA
4.611869244
NASH
3 MA
9.66038967
TROEORT
3 RD
6.639906071
TROFORT
3 MA
4.094854428
GILBERT
4 MA
5.744326994
GREEN
4 RD
3.73568251
GREEN
4 MA
10.50930578
WEAKS
4 RD
12.36810578
WEAKS
4 LA
7.193411565
WEAKS
4 MA
3.929096979
WOOTEN
4 RD
11.51578308
WOOTEN
4 LA
15.10221601
WOOTEN
4 MA
16.14723092
BURSON
5 RD
12.70347511
BURSON
5 LA
10.30020245
BURSON
5 MA
13.86202075
MORRISON
5 RD
11.76340829
MORRISON
5 LA
11.83901344
MORRISON
5 MA
9.848021516
STEWARD
5 RD
10.16101793
STEWARD
5 LA
5.754511104
STEWARD
5 MA
15.94607529
THOMAS
5 RD
12.70347511
THOMAS
5 LA
7.528097453
THOMAS
5 MA
10.98091468
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Towns Elementary School was
not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported to the Georgia
Department of Education.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 63.6% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only 12 schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only two schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Towns Elementary School.
258
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
significantly from 63.6% to 12.1%.
Fourth, of the 42 flagged classrooms at Towns Elementary School, 35 (83% of the total)
had standard deviations that exceeded five, and 16 classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations.
At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Towns Elementary School.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Towns, 89.1% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
63.6% of the total classrooms in the school.
Last, the statements of Principal Carla Pettis are in direct conflict with other witnesses.
Principal Pettis claimed she left the school at 3:30 p.m. during CRCT testing, and that she left
with Testing Coordinator Dorothy Keen. But Keen stated that she always stayed late during
testing. A staff member corroborated Keen's testimony. Principal Pettis also denied hiring her
mother and aunt to help proctor the CRCT. Keen saw both the mother and aunt at the school
during the CRCT. Compounding the conflict, Principal Pettis refused to answer questions under
oath.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Michelle Tor rev (Office Paraprofessional)
In 2009, Michelle Torrey was a paraprofessional working in the front office where
Principal Pettis' office was also located. Torrey' s desk was next to the conference room off of
Principal Pettis' office where the tests were primarily kept during the 2009 CRCT.
At the end of the testing period each day, teachers took the tests to the media center
where they checked them in with Testing Coordinator Dr. Dorothy Keen. Keen then wheeled the
tests on a cart to the conference room off of Principal Pettis' office and next to Torrey' s desk.
Keen was generally with the tests in the conference room throughout the afternoon. On a few
occasions Principal Pettis was there as well. Around 4:30 or 5:00 p.m., the tests were taken to
yet another room where they were "secured." According to Torrey, they were taken to a room
"off of the back hall." Sometimes when Torrey left for the day around 5:00 p.m. the tests were
still in the conference room.
Torrey saw people erasing things on the answer sheets, but she assumed they were
correcting names and student identification numbers. Keen did not let the teachers put student
identification numbers on the answer sheets, but insisted on doing it herself.
The room where the tests were kept was locked but Principal Pettis, Keen, the secretary
Ms. Thomas, and the night custodian all had keys.
259
Principal Pettis hired retired teachers to assist with various events, like field day and the
CRCT. Two of those teachers were Principal Pettis' mother and aunt. In 2009, they proctored
during the CRCT.
Torrey kept the attendance and discipline records at Towns. Beginning in 2004, Principal
Pettis instructed Torrey to delete and falsify attendance records to a level that was within the
target numbers for AYP. Teachers entered the attendance for their class each day. At the end of
the year, Pettis asked Torrey what the numbers were for the school. If the numbers were high,
Torrey asked teachers if they had tardy slips they had "missed." Some of the veteran teachers
knew what this question meant and produced false tardy slips. If the tardy slips were not enough
to get the attendance numbers within the target, Principal Pettis directed Torrey to alter the
absences in the computer system.
Torrey believes there was cheating at Towns on the CRCT but that it is more likely the
administrators and not the teachers who cheated.
2. Chenee Gilbert (Teacher)
Chenee Gilbert no longer teaches in APS. She left the system in part because of the
pressure placed on test scores. Principal Pettis placed Gilbert on a PDP for test scores in 2005 or
2006. She knows of other teachers who were placed on PDPs for test scores.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
/. Carla Pettis (Principal)
Principal Pettis denied cheating; however, she refused to give testimony under oath. Her
explanation for the abnormal number of wrong-to-right erasures is that students are taught the
process of elimination.
Principal Pettis denied that her mother and aunt helped during the 2009 CRCT testing
week. She believes they did assist during the 2008 CRCT.
Principal Pettis said that she left the school around 3:30 in the afternoon during CRCT
testing. She and Dorothy Keen left together.
We asked Principal Pettis why she believed the Governor asked us to investigate APS.
She responded that she thinks the investigation is racially motivated: "I think that the city of
Atlanta, that they [white people] want the city of Atlanta back, and in order to get it back, [they]
have to destroy the schools first."
2. Dr. Dorothy Keen (Testing Coordinator)
Dorothy Keen was the testing coordinator in 2009, and she denied cheating.
Each answer sheet required a student identification number. The student identification
number is six digits. According to Keen, it takes approximately one second per sheet to fill in
this number. If a student was new to the school their number needed to be filled in. Keen, with
260
assistance from the retired teachers and sometimes Principal Pettis, would check the tests to
make sure all student identification numbers were present. If a student identification number
was missing, Keen or one of her helpers would add the student identification number. There
were only about five students whose student identification numbers were not already on the tests.
According to Dr. Keen, tests were secured in Principal Pettis' office each evening. The
tests were only in the conference room for a short period of time and then were moved into
Principal Pettis' office, which was then locked. Keen stayed at the school until around 5:00 or
6:00 p.m.
Principal Pettis' mother Charlotte Everett and her aunt Mary Sherman are retired teachers
and helped proctor during the 2009 CRCT. Retired teachers helped to enter student
identification numbers in 2009.
Keen stayed "late" in the evenings during testing.
D. Other Evidence
Kelli Augburn- Johnson, Dorothy Butler, and Gentrie Weaks testified that the teachers are
intimidated and are not likely to tell investigators if cheating occurred at Towns.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We have concerns about the conflicting testimony of Michelle Torrey, Dorothy Keen,
and Carla Pettis regarding the entering of student identification numbers and how late the testing
coordinator and principal were at the school in the afternoons. However, the evidence is not
sufficient to conclude that Dorothy Keen or Principal Carla Pettis cheated.
It is our conclusion, from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this
investigation that Principal Carla Pettis failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and
adequately supervise the testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is
responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009
CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
We also find that Principal Carla Pettis directed Michelle Torrey to falsify attendance
records.
261
BLALOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CLOSED Principal: Frances Thompson SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Testing Coordinators: Charla Cheatham
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Blalock Elementary in 2009. APS closed Blalock at
the end of the 2008-2009 school year. However, Blalock Elementary was the primary feeder
school into Harper-Archer Middle and former Blalock Principal Frances Thompson is now the
principal of Harper-Archer Middle. The testimony discussed below came from interviews
conducted at that school. Cheating at Blalock is evidenced by a high number of flagged
classrooms and witness testimony. Principal Frances Thompson failed to properly monitor the
2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2(11(1
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
66.7
N/A
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
26
N/A
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
11
N/A
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
15.1
N/A
High Flagged Standard Deviation
38.2
N/A
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.9
N/A
262
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
HUNT
1 MA
4.50425563
GACHETT
1 RD
3.863706346
GACHETT
1 LA
8.485545057
GACHETT
1 MA
9.153922316
MOMPOINT
2 RD
4.266953431
OKEKE
2 LA
3.855958923
HUNTER
3RD
25.35470283
HUNTER
3 LA
21.63926106
HUNTER
3 MA
23.79024
THURMOND
3 RD
11.77386079
THURMOND
3 LA
10.33781373
THURMOND
3 MA
12.06332534
MAR HALL
3 RD
14.94355801
MAR HALL
3 LA
11.31142492
MAR HALL
3 MA
11.94334015
GRAVES
4 RD
8.493858299
GRAVES
4 LA
7.93008065
FLOOD
4 RD
19.58507323
FLOOD
4 LA
17.52580503
FLOOD
4 MA
13.20184625
JEFFERSON
5 RD
21.85147016
JEFFERSON
5 LA
19.1172379
JEFFERSON
5 MA
38.22817627
BOYD
5 RD
16.47685954
BOYD
5 LA
21.33040312
BOYD
5 MA
30.97232589
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Blalock was not managed to
ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 66.7% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only eleven schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only two schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Blalock.
Third, of the 26 flagged classrooms at Blalock, 22 (85% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and 17 classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Blalock.
Fourth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Blalock, 94.4% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
66.7% of the total classrooms in the school.
263
Finally, current Harper-Archer principal Frances Thompson was the principal at Blalock
in 2009. A number of teachers at Harper-Archer believed there was cheating at Blalock. A
teacher also told us that students from Blalock seemed to have learned that cheating was
acceptable and often cheated at Harper-Archer. There have been conversations among teachers
at Harper-Archer that Frances Thompson was brought to Harper-Archer by Tamara Cotman
because she cheated at Blalock and Cotman wanted her to cheat at Harper-Archer to get test
scores up.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
/. Kelli Koen (Teacher)
Kelli Koen testified that students in her classes that had previously attended Blalock
talked about their teachers at Blalock giving them answers on the CRCT. Koen often talked with
other Harper-Archer teachers about how many of their students had inflated test scores from
elementary school.
2. Malika Syphertt (Teacher)
Malika Syphertt believes that there was cheating at Blalock. The students in her
classroom who went to Blalock for elementary school are accustomed to cheating and attempt to
cheat "regularly." She has taught sixth grade students who cannot multiply — a skill they should
have learned in elementary school.
Syphertt heard that former Harper- Archer principal Michael Mil stead was asked to leave
because Harper-Archer had not met AYP in two years and SRT-4 Director Cotman wanted a
new principal who would get test scores up.
3. Jerry Willard (Teacher)
Jerry Willard testified that he has taught students that came from Blalock Elementary and
he felt they were very far behind academically.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
/. Frances Thompson (Principal)
Principal Thompson denied that there was cheating at Blalock on the 2009 CRCT.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
The evidence suggests someone at Blalock cheated. However, we lack sufficient
evidence to determine who specifically engaged in cheating.
We conclude that Principal Frances Thompson failed in her ultimate responsibility for
testing activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for, the 2009
CRCT. It is our conclusion from the statistical data and other evidence secured in this
investigation that Principal Frances Thompson failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and
264
adequately supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible
for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the
Georgia Department of Education.
265
WHITEFOORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
35 Whitefoord Avenue, SE Principal: Patricia Lavant SRT- 1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, GA 30317 Testing Coordinator: Shaun German-Tucker
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Whitefoord Elementary in 2009. Thirty-two people
were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating at Whitefoord is evidenced by a
high number of flagged classrooms. Principal Patricia Lavant failed to properly monitor the
2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
59.3
13.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
32
6
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
14(9)
5(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
7.0
4.5
High Flagged Standard Deviation
12.9
6.0
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.5
3.1
266
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
ALLX AN DLR
1 MA
C O s~ A O s~ C\ A A O
5.264860448
K1C rl O JN
1 MA
3.yo /454252
/ > A MTTT Ti f A TAT
CAIN 1 bK L-A1JN
2 MA
3.540054612
TJ <"\C A T T7C
KOSAbbS
2 RD
y.4/50661U6
KOSAbbS
2 LA
A /Cfl 1 007/I A £
4.60188/446
TJ AC A T T7P
KOSAbbS
2 MA
/. 368520452
B<J Y AJN 1 <JJN
3 RD
j. /y 18564U5
JJOY AJN lOJN
3 LA
d r\r\ tac /i coo
4. 003054588
BOY AJN lOJN
3 MA
n /H/ioo7ifin
y. 45488 /zuy
fir ADT T7C
3 RD
5.2560 /163 1
rtTT A TJ T T7 C
CHARbbS
3 LA
5.464209762
pu ADT T7C
CbtAKbbS
3 MA
5. y6 13453 / /
it 7TT C/~WT
Wlb&CJJN
3 RD
J. 85 14000 / J
TTT7T3 DT7DT
HbKBbK 1
4 RD
4.4y46o0016
urn t_>T_ TJ T*
HbKBbK 1
4 LA
4.6604052 /2
TTT7F1 Df T)T
HbKBbK 1
4 MA
4.0 / 1482246
T("\ "VMTTTJ TZ"\TT/~,T-JT'
JUY JNbK KJNlLrHl
4 RD
10.5 14 /558J
T/"\"\7"M"T7 TJ T^"\TT/~,TTrT'
JOYNbR KNICjHI
4 LA
4. 835073703
T("\\/"\TT7TJ TZATT/_,TJT"
.K )Y Nr,K RINICtH 1
4 MA
o.0yyz55533
C TA TTJO(T\T
MJVlr^UJN
4 RD
y. /y55z55z6
C TA f TJO AM
S 1JV11 SUJN
4 LA
O 1 n /T\ A 1 "7 o o
8. iy6y4i /88
Q TA /f T>Q CYVT
A AT A
J. / 13jy33 13
WASHINGTON
4 MA
3.832842202
BRADLEY JAMES
5 RD
11.87061022
BRADLEY JAMES
5 LA
11.03151915
BRADLEY JAMES
5 MA
11.80964867
BYRD
5 RD
12.98517898
BYRD
5 LA
8.032027764
BYRD
5 MA
9.53207868
COLLIER
5 RD
12.41750665
COLLIER
5 LA
4.905974642
COLLIER
5 MA
5.10644017
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
There are several facts which point to a conclusion that Whitefoord Elementary School
was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 59.3% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only 14 schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only two had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Whitefoord Elementary School.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
from 59.3% to 13.3%.
Fourth, of the 32 flagged classrooms at Whitefoord Elementary, 21 (66% of the total) had
standard deviations that exceeded five, and six classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At
five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
267
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Whitefoord Elementary School.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Whitefoord, 86% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
59.4% of the total classrooms in the school
Principal Patricia Lavant was the principal at Whitefoord Elementary School for the
entire WA years she was employed by APS. She remained past her eligible retirement time
because the erasure scandal was "her mess to fix" and happened under her watch. She remained
to do what she could for the teachers and the school. She said there was lots of pressure to
improve on students' scores but not enough to do something immoral. We believe her, but
conclude she failed in her managerial role. We commend her acceptance of responsibility for the
situation we found at her school and find her acceptance of responsibility to be rare in APS.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
From all of the above, we believe that there is no other rational conclusion but that there
was widespread cheating at Whitefoord Elementary School on the 2009 CRCT and that the
principal should certainly have known of this misconduct.
Principal Patricia Lavant failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing activities and for
ensuring the ethical administration of and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this investigation that Ms.
Lavant failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing activities and
test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or
erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
268
BOYD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1 89 1 Johnson Rd. NW Principal: Emalyn Foreman SRT-4 Executive Director: TamaraCotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30318 Testing Coordinator: Lovie Alridge
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Boyd Elementary in 2009. Thirty-six people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating at Boyd is evidenced by a high
number of flagged classrooms. Principal Emalyn Foreman failed to properly monitor the 2009
CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
56.1
15.7
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
32
8
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
13(11)
6(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
8.5
4.1
High Flagged Standard Deviation
23.3
6.3
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.3
3.2
269
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teachers
Grades &
Standard
Test
Deviation
JONES, D.
1 RD
3.392897049
JONES, D.
1 LA
3.614377155
JONES, D.
1 MA
4.72146137
NASH
1 LA
3.768145723
NASH
1 MA
15.49960551
DREW
1 LA
5.946929996
DREW
1 MA
4.413271695
HOLLIS
1 RD
11.00600298
HOLLIS
1 LA
13.04612483
HOLLIS
1 MA
14.47479705
BISHOP
2 RD
19.64372563
BISHOP
2 LA
22.68786194
BISHOP
2 MA
23.30240378
NELSON
2 RD
9.902731254
NELSON
2 LA
4.401081116
NELSON
2 MA
6.631521845
BENTON
2 RD
10.8615193
BENTON
2 LA
7.17956838
BENTON
2 MA
6.574156055
CLARK
2 RD
5.260713844
CLARK
2 LA
3.784059819
MCCORMICK
3RD
12.16623541
MCCORMICK
3 LA
8.913555206
MCCORMICK
3 MA
8.686863626
MOMON
3 RD
4.250014593
MOMON
3 LA
8.233257646
MOMON
3 MA
3.27411782
EVERETT
4RD
7.459472938
SAMUELS
5 LA
3.925887521
ARCHIBALD
5 RD
3.393715479
ARCHIBALD
5 LA
5.763550874
ARCHIBALD
5 MA
4.416404002
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Boyd Elementary School was
not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported to the Georgia
Department of Education.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 56.1% for the 2009 CRCT. With state
monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped from 56. 1% to 15.7%.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only three schools had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Boyd.
Third, of the 32 flagged classrooms at Boyd, 20 (62.5% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and nine classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the State
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at Boyd.
270
Fourth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Boyd, 86.1% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 56.1%
of the total classrooms in the school.
B. Narrative
Cheating occurred on the 2009 CRCT by teachers or administrators erasing and changing
student answers. Boyd Elementary has an open concept design in which classrooms have no
doors. The tests were locked in a cabinet in the media center. Principal Foreman had the only
key to the cabinet; the media specialist and Principal Foreman had the only keys to the media
center. Although no witness testified to seeing anyone changing answers, the weight of the
evidence indicates that cheating occurred at this school.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Ephigenia Paulk (Teacher)
Ephigenia Paulk was a Spanish teacher at Boyd in 2009. Paulk claimed she had not
witnessed cheating but believed cheating has occurred since the 1990s based on her observations
of students' inability to read. She stated that Principal Foreman did not like teachers to report
disciplinary issues because she expected teachers to resolve it on their own. Principal Foreman
told her to change an F to a passing grade on more than one occasion. Principal Foreman has an
inner circle including Tiffany Mom on, Rhonda Nelson, Tiffany Hollis, and Mignon Hardemon.
2. Shanay Benton (Teacher)
Shanay Benton denied knowledge of cheating on the CRCT. On a couple of occasions
while passing out her test booklets she noticed a few of them were out of order. Benton also
indicated that Principal Foreman and Testing Coordinator Lovie Alridge pressured teachers to
improve test scores, meet targets and "make the floor." Benton believed that some targets were
unattainable.
3. Lovie Alridge (Testing Coordinator)
Lovie Alridge was the Testing Coordinator in 2009. She did not erase answers or return
to the school after hours. She did not believe that any teachers erased answers but thought that
the erasures were caused by students changing answers.
4. Shanelle Clark (Teacher)
Shanelle Clark stated that she was not surprised by her students' scores. Lovie Alridge
appeared to be very strict about testing protocol. Clark stated that Principal Foreman asked her
to change an F to a passing grade because Clark had not followed proper procedures before
giving the F. She resigned because she felt Principal Foreman made false reports against her
when she was eligible for tenure. Principal Foreman had a close relationship with Alridge,
Mignon Hardemon, Amzie Samuels and Tiffany Momon.
271
5. Chalita Bishop (Teacher)
Chalita Bishop claimed it was impossible for a teacher to cheat on the CRCT. The
testing coordinator had strict protocols. Bishop thought it was strange that particular students
passed the test, but was sure that cheating had not occurred in her classroom.
6. Mignon Har demon (Counselor)
Mignon Hardemon was the counselor in 2009 and assisted Alridge with the tests. She
recorded her interviews with us on her cellular phone. Hardemon had no explanation for the
high wrong-to-right erasures.
7. Emalyn Foreman (Principal)
Emalyn Foreman was the principal of Boyd in 2009. She became principal in the 2008-
2009 school year. She denied any cheating or knowledge of cheating. Foreman's explanation
for the high wrong-to-right erasures was that students were taught to go back over their tests.
She was not surprised by the students' high scores but could offer no explanation for the drop in
scores in 2010. Principal Foreman denied she felt pressure to meet targets. She stated that Boyd
did not meet its targets but had met AYP.
Regarding allegations that she had told teachers to change an F to a passing grade,
Principal Foreman explained that there was a process that had to be followed before a student
could receive an F. Parents had to be notified and made part of the process and documentation
had to be produced to justify the grade.
Principal Foreman claimed that she had the only key to the cabinet in the media center
where the tests were stored. She also had a key to the media center. Both keys were on a chain
and locked in her desk. Only the testing coordinator had access to the tests during the testing
window.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We believe there is no other conclusion but that there was widespread cheating at Boyd
Elementary School on the 2009 CRCT and that the principal should have known of this.
Principal Foreman failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing activities and for
ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this investigation, that
Principal Foreman failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing
activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying,
misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
272
WEST MANOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
570 Lynhurst Drive, SW Principal: Cheryl Twyman SRT- 1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, GA 303 11 Testing Coordinator: Tiffany Harvey
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at West Manor Elementary in 2009. Thirty-two people
were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating at West Manor is evidenced by
a high number of flagged classrooms. Principal Cheryl Twyman failed to properly monitor the
2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
54.9
28.9
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
28
13
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
13(9)
8(3)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
7.9
6.1
High Flagged Standard Deviation
18.5
19.8
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.3
3.2
273
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
ANDERSON
1 MA
3.908283396
DALLAS
1 MA
5.616478234
WHITAKER GRAHAM
1 RD
5.715533773
WHITAKER GRAHAM
1 LA
4.742821759
WHITAKER GRAHAM
1 MA
8.416864645
PAGE
2 LA
5.034765376
PAGE
2 MA
3.338647544
WILDER
2 LA
4.50232861
CARTER
3 RD
7.673099015
CARTER
3 LA
5.322826534
CARTER
3 MA
12.82614325
LAWRENCE
3 RD
9.140511243
LAWRENCE
3 LA
4.733632175
LAWRENCE
3 MA
14.38694627
LEWIS GAMBLE
3 RD
13.82862802
LEWIS GAMBLE
3 LA
8.995334767
LEWIS GAMBLE
3 MA
18.49699548
TURNER
3 RD
11.59467722
TURNER
3 LA
6.2593922
BULLARD
4 RD
5.623989755
JASPER
4 RD
6.343220061
JASPER
4 MA
7.931151075
BLOXSON
5 RD
5.927166066
BLOXSON
5 LA
4.351273098
BLOXSON
5 MA
9.752388171
FERGUSON
5 RD
6.827040213
FERGUSON
5 LA
6.941173209
FERGUSON
5 MA
12.42261959
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
There are several facts which point to a conclusion that West Manor Elementary School
was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 54.9% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only 17 schools in APS with a higher percentage.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only four had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than West Manor.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
from 54.9% to 28.9%.
Fourth, of the 28 flagged classrooms at West Manor, 22 (78% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and six classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at West
Manor.
274
Fifth, is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures 82% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 54.9% of the
total classrooms in the school
Last, Principal Twyman had no explanation for the high standard deviations on the 2009
CRCT at West Manor, and was barely cooperative.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We believe that there is no other rational conclusion but that there was widespread
cheating at West Manor Elementary School on the 2009 CRCT and that the principal should
have known of this misconduct.
Principal Cheryl Twyman failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing activities and for
ensuring the ethical administration of and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this investigation that
Principal Cheryl Twyman failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT and adequately supervise
testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying,
misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
275
TURNER MIDDLE SCHOOL
CLOSED Principal: Karen Riggins-Taylor SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Testing Coordinators: Melanie Robinson & Keala Edwards-Cooper
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Turner Middle in 2009. Two people were interviewed
at this school. Cheating is evidenced at Turner Middle by a high number of flagged classrooms.
Principal Karen Riggins-Taylor failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
54
9.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
34
5
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
18(13)
3(2)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
8.4
3.2
High Flagged Standard Deviation
26
3.7
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.2
3.0
276
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
BROWN
6 RD
10.51882653
BROWN
6 MA
16.23933127
CULPEPPER
6 RD
8.670894583
CULPEPPER
6 MA
25.97920266
DAVIS
6 RD
8.20082255
DAVIS
6 LA
4.467418713
DAVIS
6 MA
25.14705933
WORD
6 RD
5.598186093
WORD
6 MA
7.801212402
JONES, B.
7 RD
3.569289253
BALL RIVNER
7 RD
3.371698651
BALL RIVNER
7 LA
4.784116263
BALL RIVNER
7 MA
8.320695667
CLAY
7 MA
5.401134352
LEONARD
7 LA
4.783422885
LEONARD
7 MA
15.04301674
THOMAS
7 MA
15.43576822
BAYNES
8 RD
3.403346392
BLAIR
8 RD
3.526341592
BLAIR
8 MA
16.55822821
CARR
8 RD
5.197767678
CARR
8 MA
4.679822562
CHAPMAN
8 RD
4.738508821
CHAPMAN
8 LA
3.193839303
CHAPMAN
8 MA
5.173015929
CRAWFORD
8 RD
4.004065578
CRAWFORD
8 MA
14.15098834
MUKONO
8 MA
5.567967465
NUNN
8 RD
9.979282261
NUNN
8 MA
9.18464465
SAWYER
8 RD
8.23781398
SAWYER
8 MA
4.527173489
SMITH
8 RD
5.850408204
SMITH
8 MA
5.219466222
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that Turner Middle School was not
managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 54% for the 2009 CRCT. With state
monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped significantly from 54%
to 9.3%.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only four had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than Turner Middle School.
Third, of the 34 flagged classrooms at Turner Middle School, 22 (63% of the total) had
standard deviations that exceeded five, and eight classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations.
At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
277
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Turner Middle School.
Fourth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures 85% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 54% of the total
classrooms in the school.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Mary Gordon (Teacher)
Mary Gordon taught at Turner Middle School in 2009 and now teaches at Benjamin
Carson. Gordon was given the common assessment test and an answer sheet one year and told to
administer the test. She refused to administer the tests and when she told her supervisors about
the incident later, she was told that she misunderstood. She was told the assessment and
accompanying answer sheet were meant to be "teaching tools," but Gordon said it was clear she
was supposed to cheat. She was later placed on a PDP.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Karen Riggins-Taylor (Principal)
Principal Riggins-Taylor denied cheating but did not have an alternate explanation for the
unusually high number of wrong-to-right erasures. She stated that she always made a point not
to go into the halls or the classrooms during testing. She stayed in the main office. She did not
have an explanation for why this was her practice.
D. Other Evidence
OIR investigated allegations of cheating at Turner in the spring of 2009. An anonymous
complainant alleged that Principal Riggins-Taylor and other teachers cheated on the 2009 writing
test. He or she also alleged that Principal Riggins-Taylor organized a group of teachers to cheat
on the 2009 CRCT.
APS hired Stan Williams to investigate the allegations. Williams found that the claims
were unsubstantiated.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
From all of the above, we believe that there is no other rational conclusion but that there
was widespread cheating at Turner Middle School on the 2009 CRCT and that the principal
should have known of this.
Principal Riggins-Taylor failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing activities and for
ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in the investigation that
Principal Karen Riggins-Taylor failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately
supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for,
278
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
279
WHITE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1 890 Detroit Avenue Principal: Tamarah Larkin-Currie SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30314 Testing Coordinator: Kevin Wright
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at White Elementary in 2009. Twenty -nine people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating at White is evidenced by a high
number of flagged classrooms. Principal Tamarah Larkin-Currie failed to properly monitor the
2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
47.4
22.9
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
27
11
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
14(11)
8(3)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
6.8
4.2
High Flagged Standard Deviation
18.8
5.7
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.2
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade &
Standard
Test
Deviation
ANDREWS
1 LA
3.093352558
ANDREWS
1 MA
13.31846401
DICKENS
1 LA
4.305045861
DICKENS
1 MA
6.582281814
WRIGHT
2 MA
5.396188472
GILBERT JACKSON
2 MA
3.095028739
HOWARD
3RD
5.696759054
HOWARD
3 MA
7.216407716
MOMON
3 RD
18.77228641
MOMON
3 MA
10.22071985
YOUNGINER
3 RD
4.019487408
YOUNGINER
3 MA
12.2710999
BLOUNT
4 RD
9.625215713
BLOUNT
4 MA
4.500538231
NEGUSSE
4 RD
4.109736232
NEGUSSE
4 MA
3.156223239
BARRETT
5 RD
3.761841042
BARRETT
5 MA
4.00108088
CARVIL
5 MA
10.32101268
CONYERS
5 RD
9.50849652
CONYERS
5 MA
5.544520999
DONDELL
5 RD
10.30434773
DONDELL
5 LA
3.400448928
DONDELL
5 MA
5.161987619
EDWARDS
5 RD
8.182077833
EDWARDS
5 LA
4.58897914
EDWARDS
5 MA
3.727487447
280
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
There are several facts which point to the conclusion that White Elementary School was
not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 47.4% for the 2009 CRCT. There were
only 23 schools in APS with a higher percentage in 2009.
Second, of the approximately 1,800 non-APS schools in the state taking the 2009 CRCT,
only six had a higher percentage of flagged classrooms than White Elementary School.
Third, with state monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped
significantly from 47.4% to 22.9%.
Fourth, of the 27 flagged classrooms at White Elementary School, 15 (55.6% of the total)
had standard deviations that exceeded five, and six classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations.
At five standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at White
Elementary School.
Fifth is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at White, 77% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only 47.4%
of the total classrooms in the school.
Sixth, Kevin Wright, the Instructional Liaison Specialist at White Elementary during the
2009 CRCT, stated only Principal Larkin-Currie had both keys to her office and the conference
room within her office where CRCT materials were stored when not being used for testing. She
thus had sole access to the stored tests at White.
Last, Larkin-Currie stated in her February 2, 2011, interview that she believed students
were responsible for the erasures. She further stated she had no knowledge or belief of how
cheating could have occurred at White Elementary. In her May 10, 2010, interview by KPMG
representatives as a part of the Blue Ribbon Commission investigation, she stated as a fact that
no teacher would cheat. It is apparent Larkin-Currie was out of touch with what was going on in
her school.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
Principal Tamarah Larkin-Currie failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing activities
and for ensuring the ethical administration of and proper security for the 2009 CRCT. It is our
conclusion from the statistical data and the other evidence secured in this investigation that
Principal Tamarah Larkin-Currie failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, and adequately
supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is responsible for,
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia
Department of Education.
281
HARPER ARCHER MIDDLE SCHOOL
130 Trinity Avenue SW Principal: Michael Milstead SRT-4 Executive Director: TamaraCotman
Atlanta, GA 30303-3626 Testing Coordinator: Mary Brooks
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Harper Archer Middle in 2009. Fifty-two people
were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Although no one confessed, the teachers,
almost unanimously, agree that cheating occurred. Cheating at Harper Archer is evidenced by
witness testimony.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
A. 2009 vs. 2010
2009
2011)
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
24.1
0.7
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
34
1
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
26(4)
1(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
15.8
3.2
High Flagged Standard Deviation
34.7
3.2
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.8
3.2
282
B. Flagged Classrooms
Teacher
Grade&
Test
Standard Deviation
A VTT7 T
D 1V1A.
IZ.Uj 1 loo / J
O IVI A.
iiri ^nooi
zo. loiouyzj
dKU w in
O KJJ
J. jZUj j JO^tJ
dKU w in
£T A
O L,t\_
1 77Q700 1 A 7
J. 1 / o /ZZ 14 /
riKUW IN
& AT A
O 1V1 A
on mn"7i no
ZU.UzU / 1 uz
T"*T7T7T>XT A DTXT
D KJJ
oo i^O/io i ni/i
zz. oZ4z 1UJ4
JJ 11,11, JrlN /\K11N
£ T A
1 1 IIAOI C^l
1 J. J J T" J 1 OOj
U 11,11, r IN A.K11N
O 1VIA
OT 1 1(^niTC/1
LrUUJJ W UN
M a
O 1VIA
OO AWQfi.Qfi.Q
ZZ.40070700
K L/C, IN
AT A
O 1VIA
AT A
O 1VIA
0<^ Q1 /I ^1
STARR
6 MA
7 /lg/t/lH7QnO
T T A AT C
WlJ_JJ_,l/ViVl?>
D 1V1/V
0.5U4OJ izl
f~*T T7XTXT
7 ma
/ 1VJ.A
1 J.^-Zoz^-Uo
J WIN to
/ 1VIA
Q 9Q10QnOf01
y.oyjzoUzo^t
J_,Jir>J_,J.Ji
"7
/ KJJ
Q 97Q7Q/19Q/1
7 T A
£ zLin0flfl7Szl
0.40UZUU / J4-
J_,Jir>J_,J.Ji
"7 AT A
/ 1VIA
01 £1Q£90Q1
MAY
7 MA
1 7 ssnnooozi
i /.ojuuyzz^t
7 ma
/ 1VJ.A
1 1 "7Q1 ^i£Q1 Q
/ KJJ
J. / 4-400 /JZ /
W 11JJ_,A.KJJ
7 MA
/ 1VIA
1 S SM^OS? 1 /lO
1 J. o40zol4Z
RT? OWN
JjKW W 1\
8 MA
DEEPNARAIN
8 MA
4.582951024
JONES, N
8 MA
13.69397201
JONES, T
8RD
34.6715554
JONES, T
8 LA
19.66876267
JONES, T
8 MA
15.76473105
LEFTWICH
8 MA
21.15254429
LOVETT
8 MA
19.63901724
MILLEDGE
8 MA
13.31518156
PURNELL
8 MA
19.39589402
STALLWORTH
8 MA
13.84211581
SYPHERTT
8 MA
29.48081698
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Overview
There are several significant facts which point to the conclusion that Harper Archer
Middle School was not managed to ensure that the 2009 CRCT results were accurately reported.
First, the percentage of flagged classrooms is 24.1% for the 2009 CRCT. With state
monitors present in 2010, the percentage of flagged classrooms dropped significantly from
24.1% to 0.7%.
Second, of the 34 flagged classrooms at Harper Archer 32 (94% of the total) had standard
deviations that exceeded five, and 24 classrooms exceeded ten standard deviations. At five
standard deviations, the probability that the number of erasures occurred without adult
intervention, or cheating, is no better than one in a million. At ten standard deviations the
probability is no better than one in a trillion. This signifies that the deviations from the state
mean were, for a number of classrooms, a strong indication of cheating on a broad scale at
Harper Archer.
283
Third is the individual student wrong-to-right (WTR) erasure analysis. Of the WTR
erasures at Harper Archer 69% were produced by the flagged classrooms which account for only
24.1% of the total classrooms in the school.
Finally, the majority of the teachers interviewed believed cheating occurred. The
teachers' consensus is the administrators and SRT-4 personnel cheated. The teachers also
believe that Principal Milstead left Harper Archer because SRT-4 Executive Director Tamara
Cotman wanted him to cheat and he refused.
B. Narrative
Harper Archer Middle School has historically struggled in math. Low math scores and a
20% special education population prevented Harper Archer from making AYP year after year.
Harper Archer had not made AYP for at least the last three years and was on the State's Needs
Improvement List in the 2008-2009 school year. Tamara Cotman, whose office was located in
the same building as Harper Archer, put pressure on Principal Michael Milstead and the math
coaches (Barbara Bienemy and Arn St. Cyr) to improve math scores and make AYP. Cotman
put Principal Milstead on a PDP. Milstead said he understood that if Harper Archer did not
make AYP in 2009, he would be fired. Cotman made it clear to Milstead that the key to staying
employed by APS was to make AYP "by any means necessary."
Principal Milstead believed that Cotman was more interested in the test scores than the
students. Principal Milstead refused to pressure teachers about scores. He explicitly instructed
teachers they were not to do anything unethical. Under Milstead, the school made steady, but
incremental improvements. In early 2009, prior to the CRCT, Principal Milstead announced that
he was leaving APS at the end of the school year because of differences with the administration.
Although he did not specifically name Cotman, the teachers knew that she constantly threatened
Milstead with his job if the school did not make AYP. The teachers and staff suspected that
Cotman fired Milstead because he refused to cheat to get scores up.
Milstead expressed his concern at a principals' meeting that too many students arrived at
Harper Archer from the "feeder" elementary schools with exemplary CRCT scores, but these
students were several grade levels behind. Milstead suggested that the elementary and middle
school principals work together more and share information to address this problem. This
meeting occurred in May 2008. In August of 2008, Cotman met with Milstead and told him that
the principals were very upset about his comments. Cotman was angry and gave Milstead a
verbal reprimand. Later, she told him she would not be renewing his contract. Milstead resigned
instead.
Teachers were shocked at the large jumps in math scores on the 2009 CRCT. Many
teachers discussed that the math scores could not be legitimate. They knew their students could
not have scored so well. Teachers described a Special Education math student who could not use
a calculator, but exceeded on the CRCT. Students who could not read passed the CRCT. One
teacher reported that one of her students slept through the entire test, but still passed.
Teachers were not surprised to learn that Harper Archer was flagged and that 25 of the 34
flagged classes were math classes. Virtually every teacher at Harper Archer believed that
284
cheating occurred. Not one teacher believed that Principal Milstead was involved in cheating.
Teachers uniformly pointed to administrators and SRT-4 personnel who had access to the tests.
The individuals on the testing team with access to the tests included: Testing Coordinator Mary
Brooks, ILS Sharon Green, Special Education Director Tanya Woods, math coaches Barbara
Bienemy and Arn St. Cyr, and SRT-4' s Model Teacher Leader, Diamond Jack. Principal
Milstead and his secretary, Ms. Westbrooks, and certain SRT-4 personnel, including Tamara
Cotman, had access to the vault where the tests were stored.
The day after the math portion of the test was given in 2009, the custodian, Joie Phillips,
went to the SRT-4 office to change out a water cooler when he heard some of the SRT-4 staff
discussing that the students were "doing good on the test." Mr. Phillips shared this information
with some of the teachers.
C. Testimony of Witnesses
/. Michael Milstead (Principal)
Principal Milstead worked at Harper Archer Middle School from 2006 to 2009. Tamara
Cotman placed Milstead on a PDP two out of the three years he was employed at Harper Archer
because the school did not make AYP targets. Even though the school showed growth, because
they did not make AYP or targets, Milstead scored below expectations on his evaluations. Mr.
Milstead attributes the challenges at Harper Archer to a 20% special education population. The
state average is approximately 7-8%. The school also historically struggled in math and science,
but showed progress over the years he served as principal. Milstead believed his math teachers
worked hard and spent a lot of time tutoring students and developing strategies to assist them.
Cotman made it clear on several occasions that Milstead would be without a job if the school did
not make AYP. Cotman did not want Harper Archer in the "needs improvement" category
again. Principal Milstead understood Cotman wanted him to make AYP "by any means
necessary." It was clear to Principal Milstead that Cotman' s primary concern was test scores,
not the students.
Principal Milstead resigned from APS in 2009 after Cotman told him she would not be
renewing his contract. Milstead believes that Cotman did this because of comments he made at a
principals' meeting in May 2008. During that meeting, the principals were talking about the
CRCT. Milstead expressed that a lot of students arriving at Harper Archer from the elementary
schools showed exemplary CRCT scores from fifth grade, yet were multiple grade levels behind
academically. Milstead expressed his desire that the principals work together and share
information to eliminate this problem. In August of 2008, Cotman told him the principals were
very upset about what he said at the meeting. One principal wanted Cotman to do something
about his remarks. Cotman was angry with Milstead and gave him a verbal reprimand.
When the 2009 CRCT scores were published, Principal Milstead was astonished by how
well the eighth grade students had performed as a whole, but particularly by the double-digit
jump in math scores. Milstead had been in administration for a decade and had never seen
double-digit gains in one subject area.
285
Milstead could not explain the high number of erasures. Cheating could not have
occurred during the school day without him knowing about it. Only those with keys and access
to the tests could be responsible. The tests were stored in a vault in one of the hallways.
Milstead, and his secretary, Selitha Westbrook, had a key. Testing Coordinator Mary Brooks
either had a key as well or she used Ms. Westbrook' s key. Principal Milstead assumed Cotman
also had a key to the vault. Cotman had access to the building as well, as did some of her SRT-4
employees. On some mornings, Principal Milstead reported to school early and the model
teacher leaders from Cotman' s office were already there. One of the SRT-4 employees was
Model Teacher Leader Diamond Jack. She was very close with Executive Director Cotman and
was "not a friend of Harper Archer." SRO Campbell and ILS Green were also close to Cotman.
Principal Milstead did not remember anyone staying late the week of testing and added
that he tried to get everyone out of the school when testing was over. No one should have been
in the building during the weekend after testing. Principal Milstead was surprised at the length
of time the test documents remained in the school when testing was over.
During the 2008-2009 school year, Milstead noticed that more SRT employees were
present during the week of testing than in years past. Typically only one SRT-4 representative
would be at the school, but that year there were two or three additional SRT employees at the
school.
2. Lebroyce Sublett (Assistant Principal)
Lebroyce Sublett served as the assistant principal at Harper Archer beginning in 2006-
2007. Sublett said Principal Milstead left Harper Archer because he was forced out by Cotman,
who wanted higher CRCT scores to meet AYP and APS targets. It was implied at APS that if
you did not make targets, you would lose your job, and he saw this happen to others. Sublett and
Principal Milstead were both put on a PDP by Cotman because of the performance of the school.
Sublett and Principal Milstead refused to do anything unethical, but after being put on a PDP
repeatedly, Milstead began looking for a new job. Cotman wanted Milstead to put teachers on a
PDP. Principal Milstead was told that if he would not put the teachers on PDP he would be put
on one himself. Sublett knew that PDPs were used to get rid of teachers who did not "fit the
mold." Milstead refused.
Cotman encouraged Principal Milstead and Assistant Principal Sublett to visit Parks
Middle School, to see what Parks was doing "right." They visited Parks, and were not surprised
that they saw nothing extraordinary going on. They believed Parks' scores were achieved by
cheating.
Sublett suspects the SRT and model teacher leaders are responsible for the erasures that
occurred at Harper Archer. SRT employees had access to the building and the secure storage
area.
3. Deborah Mills (Special Education Teacher)
Deborah Mills was surprised at the high number of WTR erasures on the CRCT at Harper
Archer. She did not recall any excessive erasing during the testing for her special education
students. She did hear regular education teachers discussing that they were surprised by the
286
results for the math section of the CRCT. Mills believed it was clear something happened with
regard to the math portion of the CRCT and states that APS created a culture where testing was
"do or die."
4. Renee Goodwin (Teacher)
Renee Goodwin has been a teacher at Harper Archer since 2005. Goodwin reported that
she was shocked that her classroom was flagged and wondered what happened. The math scores
in 2008-2009 increased significantly and the increase was not consistent with the work that
students did throughout the year. There were students that passed or exceeded that should not
have passed according to projections by the teachers.
The teachers at Harper Archer provided a projection list to the administration, referred to
as "bubble list." This list projected how each student in each class would perform on the CRCT.
5. Robin Glenn (Teacher)
Robin Glenn was a teacher at Harper Archer from 2006 until January 201 1 when she was
transferred to Perkerson Elementary. Harper Archer always struggled in math. The students at
Harper Archer could barely do their multiplication tables. When Glenn saw the 2009 CRCT
scores, she was shocked. Some special education students scored higher than gifted students in
math. Glenn does not believe that teachers or administrators changed the students' tests.
6. Brandy Williams (Teacher)
Brandy Williams began working at Harper Archer during the 2008-2009 school year.
Williams was surprised by several students in her class who passed the CRCT. She described
one student in particular that failed in class all year, but passed the CRCT. Williams recalls
providing a projection sheet of how she expected her students to perform on the CRCT to ILS
Green, Principal Milstead and possibly the math coach, Arn St. Cyr.
Williams denied erasing anything on her students' tests or doing anything to trigger her
students to erase. Cotman and Principal Milstead pressured Green and St. Cyr with regard to
improving math scores. During content meetings, Green and St. Cyr would give the faculty a
hard time about improving math scores as well.
Williams left immediately after school during testing, but recalled that Green, as well as
the other instructional coaches, worked late.
Principal Milstead put Williams on a PDP for low test scores after her first year at Harper
Archer because Cotman instructed him to do so.
7. Sheena Simmons (Teacher)
Sheena Simmons arrived at Harper Archer in 2008 under the Teach for America program.
During the time she was employed at Harper Archer there were four different principals assigned
to the school. She described the climate at Harper Archer as a negative atmosphere. She felt that
the teachers were "setup" because of all the change and instability among the administration.
287
Mr. Milstead was the principal in 2008-2009, but left because he had one idea of what
was best for the students and other people had different ideas. Simmons did not believe that
Principal Milstead would cheat or erase answers on students' tests. Cotman told the principals
that they needed to make AYP "by any means necessary." Principal Milstead stressed that
teachers should not do anything they felt would be wrong.
When confronted with the erasure analysis, Simmons was suspicious of the amount of
erasures from wrong to right. Simmons was concerned that 36 questions were erased from
wrong to right.
8. Malika Syphert (Teacher)
Malika Syphert administered the CRCT in 2009. She placed her students in alphabetical
order in rows. After administering the test, she picked up the tests in alphabetical order and
returned them in that fashion. Sometimes the testing documents would no longer be in
alphabetical order when she picked them up the next day. Syphert said this could have been
because of the makeup tests, which were administered by Testing Coordinator Brooks.
Syphert recalled conversations among teachers about former principal Michael Milstead
refusing to cheat resulting in Cotman asking him to leave. Cotman was considered an
authoritarian and a dictator. Frances Thompson replaced Principal Milstead. Cotman and
Thompson were close.
When the teachers received the 2009 CRCT results, they did not want to share them with
the students. The math teachers believed the math scores were inflated. Two teachers expressed
their concerns about these math scores to St. Cyr and Bienemy, the math coaches.
Syphert was not surprised when Harper Archer was flagged because of the inflated math
scores.
9. Kelli Koen (Teacher)
Kelli Koen denied knowledge of, or participation in, cheating. She did not see any
students erasing excessively during testing and said she would have noticed if students had
erased excessively. When she learned Harper Archer was one of the flagged schools, she
discussed this with Brandy Williams, and other math teachers. There was discussion among the
teachers that Green, who had a math background, and Tanya Woods were responsible for the
erasures.
Koen believed something was happening with CRCT documents when teacher Matthew
Leftwich's students' test scores came in. All of his students passed, with large gains in math
scores. Koen knew those students could not have performed on that level.
Principal Milstead wanted the school to make targets during the 2008-2009 school year,
but never threatened to place teachers on a PDP. However, Principal Frances Thompson told the
teachers that they could be placed on a PDP for low test scores.
288
10. Roshanda May (Teacher)
Roshanda May believes there was cheating, but denied that she was involved. Cotman
and Green would have access to the tests. Cotman pressured Principal Milstead to improve the
test scores, which is why he left after the 2008-2009 school year.
11. Nautrie Jones (Teacher)
Principal Milstead resigned prior to the 2009 tests being given. He told the faculty he
had resigned and said that everyone had certain goals they were trying to achieve, but he had
different ideas about how to reach them. When the 2009 CRCT scores came back, Nautrie Jones
and other teachers on her grade level team were all very upset because they knew their students
had not legitimately achieved their scores. Teachers at Harper Archer were not involved. She
believed people on the SRT level, including the model teacher leaders, were involved.
12. Andrea Leslie (Special Education Teacher)
Andrea Leslie said that the high number of erasures in all three of her special education
classrooms could only occur by someone erasing and changing her students' answers. Leslie
named Green, Brooks, and the math coaches, Jack, St. Cyr and another math coach, as having
access to the tests. The SRT -4 staff and model teacher leaders also had access to the tests and
testing materials. Leslie denied cheating.
Ms. Leslie recalled there was a student in her class who had on headphones and a hood
during the 2009 CRCT. Coach Gibson took this student out of the classroom, talked with him,
and brought him back. That student had very high WTR erasures.
She recalled a student who could not read or even write her name. This student had
substantial WTR erasures on the math section of her test.
13. Harold Lovett (Teacher)
Harold Lovett' s eighth graders read on a fourth to fifth grade level on the 2009 CRCT.
He noticed that seals were broken on one or two of the CRCT booklets. He never reported this
to anyone because he thought a student had possibly done it. Lovett explained the high number
of erasures in his classroom as someone other than himself changing answers and altering tests.
14. Jerry Willard (Teacher)
Jerry Willard said Green had both key card and alarm code access to the building.
Willard arrived at school around 6:30 a.m. each morning. He would have to wait to be let into
the building by Green, who used her key card and alarm code to access the building.
Willard believed Principal Milstead left because he would not do something that Cotman
asked him to do with regard to the CRCT.
289
15. Elbert Edwards (Teacher)
Elbert Edwards believed cheating occurred at Harper Archer. He did not believe Testing
Coordinator Mary Brooks was involved in changing any answers. He described Brooks as a
"stickler" about procedure. Edwards routinely worked late and sometimes did not leave until
8:00 p.m. SRT-4 personnel would still be in the building. Edwards suspected these SRT
employees, especially Cotman, altered students' tests. He did not suspect Assistant Principal
Sublett or Principal Milstead of anything unethical.
16. Sheila Brown (Teacher)
During the 2009 CRCT, one of the janitors, Joie Phillips, approached Sheila Brown the
day after the math section of the CRCT was given to the students. Phillips said that the students
had done well on the CRCT. Brown asked Phillips how he knew that since there was no way
anyone should already know how the students had performed. Phillips told Brown that he
overheard some SRT-4 employees talking about it.
Brown denied doing anything to prompt her students to change answers. Brown did not
notice her students erasing excessively during the test.
Brown was not shocked when she found out that Harper Archer was one of the flagged
schools. Teachers complained about students who passed the CRCT that year who should never
have passed the examination.
Brown recalled one specific student in her class who was a special education student, but
exceeded on the math section of the CRCT. This student could not read.
There was discussion that the SRT-4 model teacher leaders and Cotman erased answers
on the tests. Brown does not believe that St. Cyr would cheat, but Green and Testing
Coordinator Brooks were very close. Green often worked late at the school.
17. Alana Allen (Teacher)
Alana Allen reported that she was surprised by the high 2009 CRCT scores of other
teachers. Allen recalled several students who she did not feel could pass the CRCT, including
one special education student, but who exceeded standards on the CRCT. The special education
students' scores were higher than some of the students who were known to perform well on the
test. One of the math teachers, Mr. Leftwich, complained that one of his students fell asleep
during testing, yet he achieved very high test scores. Leftwich could not understand how this
could happen.
Allen and Leftwich knew something was wrong with the test scores when they assessed
the eighth grade math test scores at the school. Allen taught the students at Harper Archer who
were the lowest performing students in the eighth grade. Students on Leftwich' s team scored
similarly to Allen's students on benchmark tests, but on the CRCT performed exceptionally well.
Harper Archer teachers believe that the SRT-4 employees, including SRT Executive
Director Tamara Cotman, were responsible for the erasures. It was obvious to the teachers that
290
something had gone wrong. Cotman said that the students in the school had to pass the test or
the school was going to close and no one would have a job. Allen and other teachers at the
school believed Principal Milstead was forced to resign because he would not do the things that
Cotman wanted him to do.
18. Katie Reichenbach (Teacher)
When the spring 2009 CRCT scores were announced, many of the teachers were
surprised at the scores and concerned that somebody within Harper Archer's administration
cheated. Teachers acknowledged that the math scores were "not real." Reichenbach believed
ILS Sharon Green was under a lot of pressure to improve scores. Green said that they needed to
get the test scores up so "these people [SRT-4] will get off of our backs."
Reichenbach believed that Principal Milstead was forced out because Tamara Cotman
wanted him to cheat and he refused.
19. Shanequa Yates (Teacher)
Shanequa Yates recalled that when the 2009 CRCT scores came in everyone at the school
was thrilled. However, when they looked over the test scores, something was not right. The
scores for many of the students did not match up with what the teachers knew about them. Yates
and her co-workers talked about their shock at the scores. All of the eighth grade teachers
believed that Cotman and the SRT-4 model teacher leaders were responsible for the erasures.
20. Matthew Leftwich (Teacher)
Matthew Leftwich recalled that the teachers were excited when they first heard about the
percentage of students who had passed the CRCT in the 2008-2009 school year. But when the
teachers looked at individual student scores, the excitement disappeared. Leftwich knew that
some of the students could not have scored as high as they had in math. Leftwich and the other
teachers at Harper Archer knew someone altered the tests.
When the erasure analysis came out, Leftwich recalled APS employees saying students
just erased a lot, especially at the middle school level. Leftwich never saw his students erasing.
On average, any given student would erase less than four times per section on a standardized test
like the CRCT.
The teachers believed the SRT employees were responsible for the erasures. Leftwich
heard that some of the SRT-4 employees were overheard talking about how well the students
performed on the math section of the CRCT before anyone knew how students actually
performed.
21. Joie Phillips (Custodian)
Joie Phillips said ILS Sharon Green was the "boss" of Harper Archer and tried to run it as
if she was in charge of Principal Milstead. Green did not report to work early, but often stayed
late after school.
291
While changing a water jug in the SRT-4 office, Phillips overheard one female worker
say that the students at Harper Archer were "doing good" on the CRCT. This comment was
made during the week of testing. Phillips did not know who made the comment. Phillips told a
couple of the teachers on the eighth grade hall. He believes one of those teachers was Sheila
Brown.
22. TatiaMobley (Teacher)
Tatia Mobley said that one day after the 2009 CRCT test, math coach Barbara Bienemy
came to Leon Bowers' classroom and said he did a great job. Bienemy stated, "Your kids did so
good in math." This occurred prior to the results of the CRCT tests being published to the
teachers. When the CRCT results came out, the teachers felt that something was not right with
the test scores. Mobley recalled that some students on her team slept during the CRCT, yet
passed the test. Mobley recalled another student in her class who could not read, but passed the
CRCT.
Mobley feels her students were cheated. Mobley said she did not cheat and did not
prompt her students to change their answers.
23. Arn St. Cyr (Math Coach)
During the administration of the 2009 CRCT, Arn St. Cyr assisted ELS Sharon Green and
Testing Coordinator Brooks with sorting and preparing the test materials for the teachers. He
also administered the CRCT make-up examination in the media center. The tests were stored in
the school vault. Only Principal Milstead and his secretary, Ms. Westbrook, had a key to the
vault. St. Cyr believed Cotman had a key to the vault as well.
When the Harper Archer test scores came out, St. Cyr recalled Bienemy saying that the
math scores were unusually high. The percentage of students meeting standards on the math
section on the CRCT had jumped to around 50%. St. Cyr believed this was impossible.
Principal Milstead was also suspicious of the scores, but he had already been forced to resign at
the time the scores came in. St. Cyr believed that Principal Milstead had not improved CRCT
scores quickly enough for Cotman, so she refused to renew his contract. Principal Milstead
expressed to St. Cyr that he had not moved the school at the pace Cotman had expected.
St. Cyr said the Special Education sub-group and the math scores prevented Harper
Archer from making AYP. St. Cyr expressed his desire for the cheating to end. According to
him, the number of erasures at Harper Archer was "statistically impossible. Not improbable, but
impossible."
24. Travis Jones (Special Education Teacher)
Travis Jones denied he prompted his students during testing or erased any of his students'
answers. Jones believed that SRT-4 employees had something to do with the erasures.
According to Jones, if an employee had integrity, Cotman would get rid of them. If employees
did not fit Cotman' s mold, she would find a way to get rid of them. Cotman was often seen with
Special Education teacher Woods, ILS Sharon Green, SRO Veronica Campbell, and the
292
counselors. Jones did not believe that Principal Mlstead would have had anything to do with
cheating. He did not think the teachers had anything to do with cheating.
25. Barbara Bienemy (Math Coach)
When Barbara Bienemy arrived at Harper Archer in February 2009, she immediately
noticed that students lacked basic math skills such as adding, subtracting, multiplying and
dividing, and the students were multiple grade levels behind. Based on the trend data, math and
the special education population always prevented Harper Archer from making AYP. Bienemy
believed that whoever was responsible for erasures had to be good in math and have access to the
tests. Testing Coordinator Brooks and ILS Green were close, both were good in math, and both
had access to the tests.
D. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Mary Brooks (Testing Coordinator)
Mary Brooks has worked at Harper Archer since 2006, when she was transferred from
Turner Middle School by Executive Director Tamara Cotman. Brooks claimed that Principal
Milstead did not speak with her and that she was not treated as fairly as her male counterparts.
She described Milstead as a male chauvinist, although she had no knowledge of Milstead treating
other females on the staff any differently. Nonetheless, Brooks admitted that Milstead did a
"wonderful" job turning around Harper Archer, and he did a lot for the students.
Brooks denied any knowledge of cheating or participation in cheating. She did not
suspect any teachers of cheating or assisting students on the CRCT. Brooks could not explain
the high number of wrong-to-right erasures and did not know when they occurred. The testing
team during the 2009 CRCT consisted of Jacquelyn King, Tanya Woods, math coaches St. Cyr
and Bienemy, and ILS Green. Brooks stored the testing materials in crates in the school vault
overnight. She obtained the key to the vault from the school secretary, Ms. Westbrooks, and
only had access to the vault during the testing week and following make up days. Brooks denied
having unrestricted access to the school. Because SRT-4 is housed in the same building as
Harper Archer, SRT-4 staff had their own entrance and could enter the Harper Archer school
building from downstairs. During testing week, certain individuals from the central office came
to Harper Archer, but she could only recall Lester McKee's name from APS's Research Planning
and Assessment division. Model teacher leaders Diamond Jack and Tracey Colston were also
present from SRT-4.
2. Sharon Green (ILS)
Green currently serves as the math and science instructional coach at Harper Archer.
During the 2008-2009 CRCT Mary Brooks served as the Testing Coordinator at Harper
Archer. Jacquelyn King, the Success for All coach, St. Cyr, Bienemy, and Green assisted
Brooks with testing. Several model teacher leaders from SRT-4 also assisted during testing:
Diamond Jack, Nikki Stroud, and Tracey Colton. Green denied any knowledge of how the
wrong-to-right erasures occurred. She was aware that Harper Archer struggled in multiple areas,
but mostly math. Special education held Harper Archer back from attaining AYP. Green
293
acknowledged she did have key card access to the school but that the school had an alarm and
the Principal and Assistant Principal had those codes. SRT personnel could also access Harper
Archer from downstairs where the SRT office was located. Green had a close relationship with
Brooks, and the instructional coaches.
E. Other Evidence
• The percentage of classes flagged for high WTR erasures dropped from
24.1% in 2009 to .7% in 2010.
• Correspondingly, the percentage of sixth grade students who met or
exceeded standards in math dropped from 68% in 2009 to 34% in 2010,
while the percentage of students who failed math skyrocketed from 32%
in 2009 to 67% in 2010.
• The percentage of eighth grade math students who exceeded standards on
the CRCT dropped from 31% in 2009 to 4% in 2010. Correspondingly,
the percentage of students who failed increased from 18% to 33% in 2010.
• Some of the students identified by teachers as students who should not
have passed the CRCT, who slept through the test, or who could not read,
had the highest numbers of wrong-to-right erasures.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that cheating occurred at Harper Archer through the erasing and changing
of student answers. The statistical data from the erasure analysis, student data, and a review of
score drops in 2010 reveal patterns similar to those seen in schools where teachers or
administrators confessed to erasing and changing answers. We cannot conclude who erased and
changed the students' answers at Harper Archer. ELS Green, Testing Coordinator Brooks and
SRT -4 personnel, including Model Teacher Leaders Diamond Jack and Tamara Cotman, had
access to the tests. Almost unanimously, the teachers pointed to Green, Brooks and the SRT -4
personnel.
Virtually every teacher acknowledged that someone altered the answers on the students'
tests, particularly in math. It is well known that Harper Archer struggled in math and special
education. Only math and special education classes were flagged. Green has a math
background, and Diamond Jack is the Model Teacher Leader for math. Cotman put incredible
pressure on Milstead and Green to get the scores up and meet AYP, and Green feared she would
lose her job if the scores in math did not improve. Green had a close relationship with Testing
Coordinator Brooks, who had access to the tests. According to Milstead, Cotman non-renewed
him after he suggested in a principals' meeting that students' CRCT scores from elementary
school did not reflect their academic abilities in the classroom. Cotman made it clear that
Milstead should improve student scores by any means necessary.
Student data also indicated that someone in administration or SRT -4 cheated. Some of
the lowest performing students had the highest number of erasures and achieved the highest
294
scores on the test. These low performing students were well known to the administrators, since
teachers had been required to turn in "projection sheets" listing each student's expected
performance just a few weeks before the test. Some testimony indicates this was the first time
the teachers were required to turn the projection sheets over to the administration.
We conclude that cheating occurred at Harper Archer, but we are unable to determine
who cheated. We conclude that Principal Milstead did not cheat, condone cheating, or know of
cheating. Milstead may have been forced out of his position by Tamara Cotman because of his
refusal to condone cheating.
295
M. AGNES JONES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1040 Fair Street South Principal: Margul Retha Woolfolk SRT- 1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, Georgia 30314 Testing Coordinator: Andrea Johnson Lewis
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at M. Agnes Jones Elementary in 2009 and in other
years. Twenty-five people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Six people
confessed to cheating on the CRCT. Cheating at M. Agnes Jones is evidenced by confessions
and witness testimony.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
23.1
7.8
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
18
7
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
11(4)
6(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
5.3
3.8
High Flagged Standard Deviation
9.5
5.6
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.1
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
Andrea Lewis was the testing coordinator in 2009. She was assisted by Gwendolyn
Alston, Sedric Scott, and Petrina Howard. Sedric Scott denied any knowledge of cheating until
he took and failed a polygraph examination. After failing the polygraph examination, he
admitted to erasing and changing students' CRCT answer sheets and to prompting students to
change incorrect answers.
Several teachers confessed to cheating on the 2009 CRCT, and some described students
whose skills and abilities did not correspond to their high CRCT scores. Many witnesses heard
that teachers prompted their students to erase and change answers during the 2009 CRCT, and in
other years. Curtis Gale, who confessed to prompting students and erasing and changing
answers on the 2009 CRCT, testified that he feared he would be terminated if his scores did not
improve.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
/. Ann Hill (Teacher)
Ann Hill testified that the skills and abilities of her second grade students did not match
their first grade CRCT scores. She heard that Curtis Gale only read two answer choices to his
first grade students.
296
Former Principal Eunice Robinson threatened teachers with PDPs if they failed to raise
CRCT scores, stating if she were placed on a PDP, teachers would also be placed on PDPs.
2. Demetrius Barnes (Teacher)
Demetrius Barnes testified that the skills and abilities of his second grade students did not
match their first grade CRCT scores. Curtis Gale only read two answer choices to his first grade
students.
In 2006, Demetrius Barnes was placed on a team with Corliss Love and Precious Moon.
When the three were working late, Love and Moon suggested they open the vault and look at
testing materials. Barnes could not recall if this was during the administration of the CRCT or a
state writing test. Barnes refused to participate and threatened to "go over the principal's head"
if anyone looked at the testing materials.
Love and Moon had copies of the Fifth Grade Writing Test before it was administered.
Barnes heard that they knew the prompt for the writing test "word for word," well in advance of
the test.
After threatening to "go over the principal's head," and report Love and Moon's plan to
get into the vault, Barnes began receiving poor evaluations and was moved from the upper
grades to the lower grades.
3. Haneefa Rasheed (Teacher)
Haneefa Rasheed testified that the skills and abilities of her second grade students did not
match their high first grade CRCT scores.
4. Erica Franklin (Teacher)
Erica Franklin testified that the skills and abilities of her second grade students did not
match their high first grade CRCT scores. She heard that Curtis Gale only read two answer
choices to his first grade students.
5. Ginneen Smith (Teacher)
Former Principal Robinson told teachers that if a certain number of students did not pass
the CRCT, the teachers would be placed on a PDP. Ginneen Smith heard that Curtis Gale only
read two answer choices to his first grade students.
6. Chelsea Vines (Teacher)
Chelsea Vines testified that former Principal Robinson threatened teachers with PDPs if
they failed to raise CRCT scores, stating if she were placed on a PDP, teachers would also be
placed on PDPs. She too heard that Curtis Gale only read two answer choices to his first grade
students.
297
Vines heard that Precious Moon instructed her students to mark their CRCT answers in
the testing booklet and not on the answer sheet. This allowed her to check student answers and
instruct them to change incorrect answers and avoid wrong-to-right erasures.
7. Ovella Roberts (Teacher)
On the 2006 ITBS test, Sedric Scott told Roberts that she could tell students "something
was wrong" with a particular question if she noticed they answered it incorrectly.
Former Principal Robinson told teachers that if a certain number of students did not pass
the CRCT then the teachers would be placed on a PDP.
8. Stephanie Englert (Teacher)
Stephanie Englert admitted to prompting her students to change their answers during the
administration of the 2009 CRCT.
In 2003, Gwendolyn Alston had a copy of that year's CRCT, and showed it to Englert
and others.
During the administration of the 2009 CRCT, a student told Englert that his former
teacher, Idalina Couto, told students they answered a question incorrectly on the 2008 CRCT by
"popping them in the head."
During the week of CRCT testing in 2009, while Englert was working late, a
paraprofessional asked if she could borrow some erasers for Judy Walker and Nneka Reynolds.
Englert reported that it was unusual for Walker and Reynolds to work on anything without her
because they were teammates. Reynolds rarely worked late, and the fourth grade students
performed better on the CRCT than she expected in 2009.
9. Ayana Townsend (Teacher)
Ayana Townsend reported that she did not administer the reading section of the 2009
CRCT (for which she was flagged) because she was out of town. Several of her students asked
for help on the 2009 CRCT and acted confused when she did not provide assistance.
Townsend heard that the first grade teachers cheated on the 2009 CRCT. She also
testified that the skills and abilities of her fourth grade students did not match their high third
grade CRCT scores.
Principal Woolfolk threatened to place teachers on PDPs if their CRCT scores did not
improve. She had been directed by "her boss" to do so.
10. Dorris Freeman (Substitute)
Dorris Freeman administered the 2009 CRCT Reading section to Ayana Townsend's
students. Freeman had no knowledge of cheating, and stated that she would have no motivation
298
to change answers on the 2009 CRCT because she only substituted for Englert for one day of
testing.
11. Idalina Couto (Teacher)
Idalina Couto admitted to prompting students to re-read a question when the student
answered the question incorrectly on the 2009 CRCT. She also admitted to re-wording or
explaining questions that students could not understand.
Couto said that Curtis Gale prompted his students or only read two answer choices when
administering the CRCT.
12. Stephanie Barley (Teacher)
Stephanie Bagley could provide no explanation for the high number of wrong-to-right
erasures in her classroom. She believed "the administrators" may have erased and changed
answer sheets.
13. Rose Logan (Teacher)
Rose Logan admitted to erasing student answers when the student selected two answers
for a particular question. Logan also admitted that she filled in the correct answer on students'
answer sheets when students failed to answer a question on the 2009 CRCT. She felt pressure to
increase her CRCT scores. Because she was close to retirement, she did what she was required
to do to keep her job. Logan says that she never actually changed any student's answer on the
2009 CRCT.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Precious Moon (Teacher)
Precious Moon could provide no explanation for the high number of wrong-to-right
erasures in her classroom. She described a previous OIR investigation regarding her giving
answers to a student during a previous CRCT. Moon stated she was investigated and cleared by
OIR.
2. Corliss Love (Teacher)
Corliss Love admitted to prompting students to change their answers on the 2009 CRCT.
She now realizes her prompting was a testing violation.
3. Curtis Gale (Teacher)
Curtis Gale admitted to prompting his students to change answers during the
administration of the 2009 CRCT, and in other years, by using voice inflection. Gale also
admitted that he only read two answer choices, omitting the third. Gale further admitted that in
2009 and other years, when his students completed their tests, he would scan the tests and erase
and change wrong answers.
299
Gale erased and changed answers in the conference room when the tests were returned
during the time teachers were supposed to be cleaning up "stray marks" on the CRCT. Gale
erased and changed answers when other teachers and the testing coordinator were present. Gale
did not see any other teacher erase or change answers during the stray mark cleaning session, but
was focused on his own tests.
Gale prompted his students and erased and changed their answer sheets because he felt
pressure from former Principal Robinson and current Principal Woolfolk to improve his CRCT
scores. He feared he would lose his job if his CRCT scores did not improve.
4. Sedric Scott (Math Coach)
Sedric Scott originally denied any knowledge of cheating. After he took and failed a
polygraph examination, however, he confessed to erasing and changing answers on students'
CRCT answer sheets, and to prompting students to change incorrect answers on the CRCT.
Scott showed signs of deception by responding negatively to three questions during his
polygraph examination: Have you ever instructed anyone to change any answers on a CRCT?
Have you ever personally changed any answer on a CRCT? Have you ever knowingly allowed
anyone to change an answer on the CRCT?
5. Andrea Johnson Lewis (Testing Coordinator)
Andrea Lewis stated that Gwendolyn Alston, Sedric Scott, and Petrina Howard assisted
her during the 2009 CRCT. Alston and Howard passed out, and accepted the return of, CRCT
materials for the first and second grades. Lewis and Scott passed out, and accepted the return of,
CRCT materials for the third, fourth, and fifth grades. The two teams sat in separate conference
rooms. The tests were stored in the principal's office after they were returned by the teachers.
No teachers picked up their tests early or turned them in late. While former Principal Robinson
allowed teachers to erase stray marks together in a conference room, Principal Woolfolk would
not.
Only Principal Woolfolk and her secretary, Kandis Hendrix, had a key to the principal's
office.
6. Margul Retha Woolfolk (Principal)
Principal Woolfolk had no knowledge of cheating on the 2009 CRCT. She received one
report of a teacher cheating, but that teacher was cleared after an APS investigation. The parent
of a student reported that Precious Moon assisted her students on the 2009 CRCT. Principal
Woolfolk immediately mailed a letter to Lester McKee informing him of the allegation against
Moon. A copy of that letter is included as Attachment A.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Curtis Gale, Corliss Love, Precious Moon, Sedric Scott, Idalina Couto
and Rose Logan cheated on the CRCT in 2009 and in other years.
300
Based on the statistical evidence and the evidence we have found at schools with similar
statistical data, we believe that other flagged teachers also cheated, but we lack sufficient
evidence to determine which additional teachers cheated.
We do not believe that Principal Woolfolk condoned or knew of cheating at M. Agnes
Jones. The only time cheating was reported to her, she immediately alerted OIR and Lester
McKee.
301
Margdl Retha Woolfolk
Principal
M. Agnes Jones Elementary
L 040 fair Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgea 303 14
Phdne (404) 802-3900
FAX (404) 752-5655
May 21,2009
Mr. Lester McKee,
I would like to inform you of a complaint that I received from Ms. Montgomery-Dent
the mother of Kayla Dent, on Thursday, May 21 , 2009 at approximately 2:00 p.m. Ms.
Montgomery-Dent alleged the following against her child's 5th grade teacher, Mrs.
Precious Moon:
• Students were given answers by the teacher on the CRCT
• A student was advised to change his answer on the test
• Students were told to bubble anything on the science portion of the test and she
would change the answers later
Due to the severify of these allegations, I felt it necessary to report the matter to you
immediately as well as the Office of Internal Resolutions.
Ms. Montgomery Denf s phone number is 1-21 6-374-71 30
Sincerely,
Margul Retha Woolfolk
Principal
Cc: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Ms. Colinda Howard
lu-uilu-^-u
EXHIBIT
302
PARKS IDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
685 Mercer St. Principal: Dr. Phillip Luck SRT-3 Executive Director: Dr. Gloria Patterson
Atlanta, Georgia 30312 Testing Coordinator: Clementine Shanks
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Parkside Elementary in 2009. Sixteen people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. Three teachers confessed to cheating.
Cheating at Parkside is evidenced by confessions.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
21.3
4.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
16
3
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
7(5)
3(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
6.1
4
High Flagged Standard Deviation
9.5
4.9
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.2
3.3
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Selena Wyatt (Teacher)
Selena Wyatt confessed to prompting students to change their answers. If Wyatt felt like
the students were not focusing or were getting obvious questions wrong, she said "listen again"
and she re-read the question. She often saw students erase their answers when she did this.
Wyatt only did this on the math section of the test.
2. Pelita Johnson Meredith (Teacher)
Pelita Johnson Meredith taught third grade in 2009 and confessed to prompting her
students when they answered incorrectly. As Meredith walked around monitoring her class, if
she noticed they had an incorrect answer, she pointed to the test question. Her students
understood that they needed to erase that particular answer. She did not tell them the correct
answer.
Meredith sometimes questioned the validity of students' CRCT scores when they
transferred to Parkside from another school. Transfer students' test scores often did not match
their ability in the classroom. She specifically identified students from Deerwood Academy.
303
3. Terance Shipman (Teacher)
Terance Shipman taught second grade in 2009 and confessed to prompting students
during the CRCT. If he noticed a student answered a question incorrectly he sometimes
reminded them to go back and review the question. Shipman never gave the students the
answers. Shipman discussed various ways to prompt students with teachers Selena Wyatt and
Tamara Sparks.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Selena Wyatt, Pelita Meredith, and Terance Shipman cheated on the
2009 CRCT by prompting their students to change answers during the administration of the 2009
CRCT. Principal Phillip Luck did not know of the cheating at Parkside Elementary.
304
BETHUNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
220 Northside Drive Principal: RoseMary Hamer SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30314 Testing Coordinator: Aretha Ragland
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Bethune Elementary in 2009. Thirty people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. Two teachers confessed to cheating. Cheating
is evidenced by a high number of flagged classrooms, confessions and witness testimony.
Principal RoseMary Hamer failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
23.1
3.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
18
2
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
13(4)
1
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
4.2
5.6
High Flagged Standard Deviation
6.8
7
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
4.3
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
One teacher confessed to prompting students by reading questions a third time and
rephrasing them to assist her students' comprehension. A second teacher confessed to prompting
her students by reading questions a third time if they missed the question or fell behind.
Bethune met AYP consistently for years, but the percentage of students meeting and
exceeding standards steadily dropped. Principal RoseMary Hamer was under constant scrutiny
and pressure from her SRT Director to meet district targets. As a result, pressure was passed
down to the teachers. One teacher described it as "a culture of pressure" to meet targets.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Angela Gardner (Teacher)
Angela Gardner admitted to cheating on the 2009 CRCT by prompting students during
testing. Gardner walked around the class and if she noticed that several students had missed the
same question she would go to the front of the class and read the question a third time. She
sometimes rephrased the question. As a result of her actions, many of Gardner's students erased
and changed their answers from wrong to right.
305
2. Holly Thomas (Teacher)
Holly Thomas was a special education teacher for kindergarten and first grade in 2009.
Thomas admitted to causing the students to erase and change their answers from wrong to right.
During the 2009 CRCT, Thomas administered the test to eight special education students. All
eight passed the test. If she noticed students worked ahead, she would make them erase the
answers and only select answers after she read them the question. If she noticed that a student
had fallen behind, she would read the question to the student a third time. If she noticed, while
walking around the classroom, that a number of students had missed a question then she would
read it a third time.
Thomas had two particularly bright students who would sometimes shout out the answers
to the test questions. The other students knew those two were bright and would erase and change
their answers to what was shouted out. Thomas said that happened "a lot." A third child was
particularly good at math and he only shouted out answers during the math section.
There was a culture of pressure on the teachers. Principal Hamer never said or did
anything inappropriate as far as putting pressure on teachers but if a teacher's class did not do
well it reflected badly on the teacher.
3. Sandra Wilson (Teacher)
Sandra Wilson was a third grade teacher in 2009. She denied cheating. She resigned
from Bethune due to harassment from Principal Hamer about low test scores on the 2009 CRCT.
Her students were performing below grade level when they were assigned to her class. Principal
Hamer told Wilson she "needed to do whatever she had to do to make sure the kids were going
to pass." She was never explicitly told to cheat, but the message was clear to her. Others on the
third grade level conveyed similar messages. She was frustrated and told them she was not
going to cheat. She knew she had the lowest test scores in the school but her students did the
best they could. Wilson said she did not cheat and was ostracized at the school.
When questioned about specific students with improbable wrong-to-right erasures on the
math section, Wilson was shocked. One child, who had ten out of 11 erasures changed from
wrong to right, was identified as a special education student who Wilson did not believe erased
at all. She recalled that he had emotional issues and just "shut down," and probably did not
finish the test. Another student, who had five out of five erasures changed from wrong to right,
was also a special education student who Wilson believed could not have made those erasures.
Wilson tested both students with the entire class; they were not pulled out for separate testing.
Wilson said about half of her third grade class performed at a kindergarten level and could barely
read.
Principal Hamer "hammered" the teachers about test scores in meetings. She grilled
them about their scores on the benchmark tests which Wilson recalled were "awful, just awful . .
. . really terrible." By the time they took the CRCT, everyone's scores suddenly improved
except Wilson's, which remained just as they were on the diagnostic tests. Some of the teachers
on her grade level had students that performed as poorly as Wilson's, yet passed the CRCT.
Wilson felt certain that she was the only teacher who had valid scores, and she suspected
306
cheating but had no proof. Principal Hamer "called her out" in front of everyone because of her
test scores. Wilson said that "if you didn't dance their dance and do what they want you to do,
whether it was right or wrong — they didn't like you and they would try to harass and intimidate
you."
Money was a motivation for doing well. Wilson heard Principal Hamer say that she
knew they were looking forward to getting their check and she (Hamer) was looking forward to
getting hers too. Wilson was not surprised to learn that APS was being investigated for cheating.
She felt there were well-qualified teachers at Bethune but their focus was not on the children.
4. Alexandra Pajak (Teacher)
Alexandra Pajak was a program coordinator at Bethune in 2009. She was assigned to
Bethune through a program called Community in Schools. Her responsibility was to monitor
attendance. Pajak left Bethune because the work environment was "toxic." Pajak gave
investigators a document she had prepared for the interview. A copy of the document is included
as Attachment A. The document includes the following information:
a. Principal Hamer told the teachers at a staff meeting in November
2010 that the GBI would be coming to interview them, that they
would have a gun in their pocket, that they would try to intimidate
them at their interview, and that teachers could choose what to tell
them.
b. In September 2010, administrative assistant Djuana Edmond told
Pajack, "It wasn't the teachers that cheated at this school. The
administration really dodged a bullet [during first round of
interviews]. I didn't cheat and they're not interviewing me, so I'm
not saying anything."
c. On May 5, 2010, Principal Hamer withdrew students who missed
ten or more days of school in order to meet APS attendance
targets, and allowed students who lived outside of the zone to
remain at school as long as their test scores and attendance were
strong.
5. Aretha Ragland (Assistant Principal & Testing Coordinator)
Aretha Ragland was the assistant principal and testing coordinator in 2009. She had no
information or knowledge of testing improprieties.
6. Brenda Rattler (Teacher)
Brenda Rattler was surprised over the years by children she believed would not perform
well. She attributed their unexpected success to them "taking their time."
307
7.
Charice Coston (Teacher)
Charice Coston was a fifth grade teacher in 2009. She was on maternity leave during the
2008-2009 school year and was not present to administer the 2009 CRCT to her class.
Stanley was a second grade teacher in 2009. She denied cheating or knowledge of
cheating. Stanley said she never erased anything on her students' tests, not even stray marks. At
no time have teachers erased stray marks. They tell their students to erase them. Stanley recalled
that she had four or five students in 2009 who received extra tutoring from Traci Walker, a
special education teacher. She believed those students may have been tested separately by other
teachers.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
RoseMary Hamer was the principal of Bethune in 2009. She stated that the school has
met AYP for so many years that although they did not technically meet AYP in 2010, Bethune
was "deemed" to have met AYP "by confidence." Principal Hamer attributed the drop in flagged
classes in 2010 to the students being afraid to erase. She has been principal of Bethune for ten
years, and has met the district targets only a few times. Last year she was placed on a PDP by
SRT-4 Executive Director Sharon Davis-Williams for low test scores, which she felt was unfair.
Principal Hamer said she wanted to make targets, but did not feel pressure to do so. Asked if the
teachers felt pressure about meeting targets, Principal Hamer said they "probably" did.
The tests were locked in the vault to which only she, the secretary and Testing
Coordinator Aretha Ragland had a key. Teachers could collect their tests between 7:30 and 8:00
a.m. The tests were passed out and collected in the media center. Principal Hamer said they did
not erase stray marks. She was not aware of any cheating allegations at Bethune, but was
confident that any allegations that were reported would be thoroughly investigated by APS. She
was not aware of students shouting out answers in class during 2009 testing. She would be
surprised to learn that teachers at Bethune admitted to cheating.
Regarding former teacher Sandra Wilson, Principal Hamer stated that Wilson was at
Bethune for one year and was not a great teacher. Hamer thought that Wilson's students were
not progressing at the pace they should have been. Principal Hamer felt that her third grade
teachers were not a "solid group of teachers" in 2009. She would not have wanted Wilson to
remain on the third grade level.
D. Other Evidence
8.
Lisa Stanley (Teacher)
1.
RoseMary Hamer (Principal)
In 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, Bethune met AYP.
In 2009-2010, Bethune met AYP. The school's status dropped from
"Distinguished" to "Adequate." The percentage of students not meeting
standards increased by 6% .
308
• In 2010, teachers did not gather to erase stray marks as they had in prior
years.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that cheating occurred on the 2009 CRCT at Bethune. Angela Gardner
encouraged her second grade students to erase and change answers from wrong to right by
rephrasing questions or reading them a third time. Holly Thomas prompted her special education
students by reading questions a third time if several had missed the question or fell behind.
Principal Hamer pressured teachers to "do what you need to do" to raise the test scores.
She created an atmosphere where teachers felt it was necessary to cheat. Principal RoseMary
Hamer failed in her ultimate responsibility for testing activities and for ensuring the ethical
administration of, and proper securing for the 2009 CRCT. It is our conclusion, from the
statistical data and the other evidence, that Principal Hamer failed to properly monitor the 2009
CRCT, and adequately supervise testing activities and test security. This resulted in, and she is
responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the results of the 2009
CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
309
Alexandra Pajak
Interview, April 5, 2011
Documentation
Directly Related to CRCT
-On November 23, 2010 Principal RoseMary Hamer called a staff meeting in the
media center at Gethune Elementary School. She tofd staff members, "The GBI
will be coming to the school. They'll walking like this with their arm over their
packet [demonstrated walking with arm over pocket]. They'll have a gun in their
pocket. They'll try to intimidate you when they interview you. And you can
choose what to tell them."
-September 2010, Administrative Assistant Djuana Edmond told me, "ft wasn't
the teachers that cheated at this school. The administration really dodged a
bullet [during first round of interviews). I didn't cheat and they're not interviewing
me, so I'm not saying anything."
-May 5, 2010: Principal withdraws students who miss 10 or mom days of school
to meet APS Attendance Target. Principal allows students to remain at the
school If out of zone as long as their rest scores and attendance are strong.
-Spring 2010 The day the CRCT tests arrived to Bethune, an Administrative
Team Meeting was held (already scheduled on calendar) in the front office
conference room, i presented my attendance data. The other people present
(Principal RoseMary Hamer, Counselor Tamtka Witcher, ILS staff member
Stephanie Renfroe, Reading Coach Melanie Searcy, and Success for All coach
Alicia Walton) looked [in my opinion] very nervous and scared. When I finished
with my data, Principal RoseMary Hamer said to me, "You can decide to stay or
leave the meeting now." I left the meeting. The meeting (which usually lasted
about an hour) lasted four hours that day.
Behavior of Administration
-January 6, 2010: While Principal out of the building, I was "mobbed'' by
administrative team. I was called into a meeting by ILS staff member Stephanie
Renfroe. The group of women began to shout at me, telling me if I did not do as
they said (to take a lunch monitor slot the principal told me not to) they would tell
the principal I'm not "a team player." I walked out of the meeting. I informed the
principal of the situation on January 6, 2010 in the main hallway when she
returned to the building. She rolled her eyes and said, "I don't want this drama, "
and walked away. I complained to my supervisor, who held a meeting with the
principal on January 12, 201 1; Ms. Renfroe continued to shout at me, accusing
me of shouting while in the meting in which I was mobbed. Principal did not ask
Ms. Renfroe to lower her voice. The principal asked me (in my opinion, oddly),
10-0110-25-11 «■«*
310
why I did not (the the school counselor, Tamika Witcher. I told her that in
Summer 2009 the counselor told a student who was seen by the school social
worker for stab wounds, "I should put you on hotghertDmess.com,* after the
student told her he had pet rotweilers at home. The principal than said, "That
isn't leaving this room." (1 had informed my then supervisor of the comment the
day of the comment in 2009.)
-November 12, 2010 Principal RoseMary Hamer opened and shut the door
halfway and I assumed it was a kid (I couldn't see anyone outside the little
window part on the door, so I assumed it was a tiny kid that had trouble opening
the door and would reopen it). The principal walked in and said, "You should
have looked up. I could have been a sniper. You should be more careful" to the
attendance clerk, Mr. Cabral Williams, and ma
-April 20, 2010 a fifth grader skipped school. Principal RoseMary Hamer told ILS
staff member Ms. Stephanie Renfroe that if the student tries to skip school, "Tell
her [the student] will have the student handcuffed and taken away from the
school in a police car."
-On September 29, 2^f'the Principal refused to give me space to store food
after I told her I was asked not to write a press release for the Blessings in a
Backpack program until Spring semester.
- September 29, 201 1 a parent came in with a yellow shirt that had pencil marks
on it. The parent said two to three boys had thrown glass bottles at his daughter
on the way home from school and that the pencil marks were where the boys
stabbed her with a pencil. The principal did not suspend any of the students.
Once the parent and students left the front office, the principal said, "I might call
the police on them," referring to two brothers (one eight years old and another
ten years old) to discipline them for throwing bottles and stabbing the girl with a
pencil.
10-011 0-25 -H £XHIB,T »
311
MILES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
4215 Bakers Ferry Road, SW Principal: Christopher Estes SRT-1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, Georgia 30331 Testing Coordinator: Shuanta Broadway
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Miles Elementary in 2009. Thirteen people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. Two teachers confessed to cheating. Cheating
at Miles is evidenced by confessions and witness testimony.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
21.7
2.9
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
13
2
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
6(5)
1(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
6.1
3.8
High Flagged Standard Deviation
9.8
4.4
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.3
3.1
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Rae Debose-Douglas (Teacher)
Rae Debose-Douglas recalled that teachers complained that their students' skills and
abilities did not match their high scores on prior CRCT tests.
Testing Coordinator Shuanta Broadway once commented that she had to review each
student's CRCT answer sheet to make sure they answered the majority of the questions.
2. Shondra Etheridge (Teacher)
Shondra Etheridge denied any knowledge of cheating, but admitted that based on the
statistical data, someone tampered with her tests. She heard of teachers using voice inflection to
prompt students.
3. Tillian Williams (Teacher)
Lillian Williams admitted that she prompted students using voice inflection, and that her
voice inflection could have caused the high wrong-to-right erasures in her classroom on the 2009
CRCT.
312
4. Kiatonya Wormley (Teacher)
Kiatonya Wormley admitted that she erased the incorrect answer choice when students
filled in one or more bubbles on the CRCT. She denied any further knowledge of cheating.
5. Sabrina Claude (Teacher)
Sabrina Claude heard that Debose-Douglas obtained a copy of the CRCT from another
district, and used it to cheat on the 2009 CRCT.
Claude identified a student in her classroom in 2010 that told her Lillian Williams gave
the student answers during the 2009 CRCT.
6. Temica Bell (Teacher)
Temica Bell taught the daughter of fellow teacher Lakeisha Davis. That student told
Temica Bell that she recognized a reading passage on the 2009 CRCT because she had studied it
the previous night. Lakeisha Davis was friends with Rae Debose-Douglas and Lori McAdoo,
both flagged teachers on the 2009 CRCT.
7. Lakeisha Davis (Teacher)
Lakeisha Davis stated that her daughter studied a CRCT coaching book that Lakeisha
Davis borrowed from Miles Elementary, and denied Temica Bell's assertion that the book was a
copy of the 2009 CRCT.
Davis admitted to instructing her students to re-read a question when she noticed they had
selected a wrong answer, and says this prompting could have accounted for the high number of
wrong-to-right erasures in her classroom on the 2009 CRCT.
8. Lori McAdoo (Teacher)
Lori McAdoo denied all knowledge of cheating, and denied possessing a copy of the
CRCT.
9. Shuanta Broadway (Testing Coordinator)
Shuanta Broadway testified that only Principal Estes and she had keys to the area where
the tests were kept. The first and second grade teachers were permitted to clean stray marks
from their testing materials, but the third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers were not. She denied
telling Rae Debose-Douglas that she checked to make sure the students filled in the majority of
their answers on their answer sheets. Broadway denied any knowledge of cheating on the 2009
CRCT or in any other year.
10. Christopher Estes (Principal)
Principal Estes denied any knowledge of cheating at Miles.
313
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Lakeisha Davis, Kiatonya Wormley and Lillian Williams cheated on
the 2009 CRCT. We also conclude that Principal Estes did not know cheating occurred on the
2009 CRCT.
314
GROVE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
20 Evelyn Way Principal: Caitlyn Sims SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Testing Coordinator: Derick Brown
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Grove Park Elementary in 2009. Seven people were
interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating at Grove Park is evidenced by two
confessions and witness testimony.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
20
4.5
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
15
3
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
7(5)
3
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
8.5
3.9
High Flagged Standard Deviation
15.8
4.3
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.2
3.1
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
The weight of the evidence indicates that cheating occurred in classrooms by teachers.
Two teachers confessed to prompting their students to erase and change their answers from
wrong to right. First grade teacher Allison Tollman cheated by prompting her students through
voice inflection and stressing key words when reading questions and answers, and by reading
questions a third time. Fifth grade teacher Beverly Shanks prepared her students a week before
testing to watch for her verbal and non-verbal cues during testing. If she noticed a student with a
wrong answer, she would look away from the student and tell the class to check their answers.
We could not locate Testing Coordinator Derick Brown for an interview.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Caitlyn Sims (Principal)
Caitlyn Sims' first year as principal at Grove Park was 2009. She had no explanation for
the high wrong-to-right erasures in her school. Principal Sims feels that the target system at APS
was very difficult and created a great deal of pressure and intimidation. She stated that instead of
celebrating a school's accomplishments, APS constantly ranks and reminds schools of how
"low" they are and that they didn't meet the targets. Additionally, principals are constantly
reminded that evaluations are based on whether you make targets. She felt that targets were
"statistically inappropriate" and that the system was like a house of cards.
315
Principal Sims was placed on a PDP by her SRT-4 Executive Director, Tamara Cotman.
Principal Sims knew that she had not met her targets but was surprised by the PDP because she
had received commendations in other areas. Cotman told her, "Based on your test scores,
obviously you weren't really doing enough with your staff."
2. Allison Tollman (Teacher)
Allison Tollman admitted to cheating on the 2009 CRCT by prompting students and
causing them to erase and change answers from wrong to right. Tollman also stated that she
sometimes read the question a third time and stressed a portion of the question. She never gave
students the correct answer. She believed that the high number of wrong-to-right erasures could
have been caused by her voice inflection when she read the answer choices a third time.
Tollman stated that she felt pressure to improve her students' scores from the "system"
and administration. She felt that the former principal, Dr. Paula Snowden, applied more pressure
with respect to scores. Tollman added that teachers did not gather to erase stray marks in 2009
but had done so in previous years.
3. Beverly Shanks (Teacher)
Beverly Shanks was flagged in reading and math for high wrong-to-right erasures.
Shanks confessed to cheating on the 2009 CRCT. She said that one week prior to the CRCT, she
instructed her students that if she told them to check their answers during the test, they had a
wrong answer and needed to review the question and answer choices again. She did not provide
those instructions on test days because she was afraid of being overheard on the intercom.
During the test, if she noticed an incorrect answer on a student's answer sheet, she would look
away from the student and tell the class they needed to check their answers. She never directly
told a student to check his or her answer. Shanks admitted she did this numerous times while the
students were testing. She believed it would explain the high number of wrong-to-right erasures
in her class.
She heard of others cheating on the CRCT by assisting students with answers and erasing
and changing answers on student tests.
4. Pamela Lewis (Teacher)
Pamela Lewis was flagged for high wrong-to-right erasures in all subjects. She denied
cheating and knowledge of cheating. She did not know why her students had high numbers of
wrong-to-right erasures because she did not see a lot of erasing. Lewis reported a testing
irregularity in 2009. One student read and answered every question in the reading section of the
test before Lewis read them aloud to the class. He filled in all of the answer choices for each
question, so Lewis instructed him to go back and choose one answer per question.
5. Maya Moore (Teacher)
Maya Moore was flagged in all subjects for high wrong-to-right erasures. She stated that
she read the question the first time in a monotone voice, but the second time she read the
question she might add some inflection to her voice. Moore's interview was interrupted while
316
she administered a test. When the interview resumed, Moore recanted some of her statement.
She said the first time she read the question in a normal tone. The second time she added some
inflection to get the students to focus. She stated that she did not do that often on the CRCT. If
re-reading the question caused students to change answers from wrong to right, it was not her
intention. She felt that due to the high number of erasures, there may have been "outside help"
as well as students looking at each other's answers during the test. She did not believe her
actions could have caused all the erasures in her class.
Moore added that she was close to the Testing Coordinator in 2009, Derick Brown, and
thought he should be interviewed.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Allison Tollman and Beverly Shanks cheated by prompting their
students during the administration of the 2009 CRCT. Principal Sims did not know of cheating
at Grove Park.
317
JACKSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1325 Mt. Paran Road Principal: Dr. Lorraine Reich SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30327 Testing Coordinator: Jimmye Hawkins
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Jackson Elementary in 2009. Jackson was not flagged
for having classrooms with higher wrong-to-right erasures than the state mean. During the
course of this investigation, however, we became aware of possible cheating at Jackson on the
2009 CRCT. Five people were interviewed at Jackson and two teachers confessed to cheating.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
3.7
6.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
4
7
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
3(1)
6(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
3.6
3.5
High Flagged Standard Deviation
4.8
4.2
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.1
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Ann Offen (Teacher)
Ann Offen admitted to prompting her students with voice inflection on the 2009 CRCT.
She explained that her voice inflection was accidental because she read "dramatically" to her
students all year long. She was "certain" that students "caught on to the way I inflect my voice."
She further admitted that if she noticed a student mark the same answer choice over and over she
would direct that student to re-read the questions. She further testified that she was not surprised
she was flagged, but she was embarrassed to be flagged.
2. Tori Dewberry (Teacher)
Lori Dewberry testified that she never prompted a student, never suggested they re-read a
particular question, and never pointed to or suggested correct answers. Dewberry stated that if
she saw a student mark the same answer choice over and over she did nothing. Dewberry stated
that she may have unconsciously prompted her students to change answers on the 2009 CRCT.
She explained that she read "dramatically" to her students throughout the school year, and may
have accidentally used voice inflection when reading the correct answer choices during the 2009
CRCT.
318
3. Lorainne B. Reich (Principal)
Lorainne Rech denied any knowledge of cheating at Jackson.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
Of the three flagged teachers at Jackson, two admitted they "accidentally" used voice
inflection when reading the answer choices to their students during the 2009 CRCT. We
conclude that Ann Offen and Lori Dewberry cheated on the 2009 CRCT. We find that Principal
Reich did not know of the cheating at Jackson.
319
CLEVELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2672 Old Hapeville Road Principal: Dr. Rhonda Ware-Brazier SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Testing Coordinator: Lillian Jackson
I. INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at Cleveland Elementary School in 2009. Sixteen
people were interviewed at this school, some more than once. Cheating at Cleveland is
evidenced by a confession.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2011)
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
26.1
8.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
18
5
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
10(6)
3(2)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
6.0
4.2
High Flagged Standard Deviation
13.8
5.3
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.0
3.8
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Testimony of Witnesses
/. Alvia Barnett (Teacher)
Alvia Barnett admitted to prompting students on the 2009 CRCT. Barnett said that if she
noticed that a student answered a question incorrectly she told the student to go back and check
the answer. She also rephrased an answer if she thought it was a word the student was not
familiar with.
Barnett' s proctor prompted students as well. She read the question again to individual
students, even though Barnett had read the question twice. Barnett heard her proctor direct
students to go back and check particular questions.
2. Dr. Rhonda Ware-Brazier (Principal)
Dr. Rhonda Ware-Brazier denied knowledge of cheating.
She brought in retired teachers to proctor during testing in 2009. The retired teachers
erased stray marks on the answer sheets, but teachers did not.
320
3. Lillian Jackson (Testing Coordinator)
Lillian Jackson was the testing coordinator in 2009. She denied knowledge of cheating.
Jackson gave teachers an opportunity to erase stray marks for approximately five to ten
minutes after testing.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that Alvia Barnett cheated on the 2009 CRCT by prompting students to
change their answers. Principal Ware-Brazier did not know of the cheating at this school.
321
ALONZO A. CRIM OPEN CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL
256 Clifton Street Principal: Dr. Angelisa Cummings SRT-5 Executive Director: Joyce McCloud
Atlanta, Georgia 30317 Testing Coordinator: Isabella Copridge
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Alonzo A. Crim High School had one eighth grade class. Three sections of the CRCT
were administered to this single class. One of those three sections was flagged, resulting in a
33% flag rate being assigned to the school. This overall percentage was sufficient to put Crim in
the severe category under the state's analysis even though there was only a single flagged
subject. That one flagged classroom did not justify investigating Crim given the scope of the
larger investigation. No one was interviewed with respect to Crim.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
33.3
0
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
1
0
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
1
0
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
5.2
0
High Flagged Standard Deviation
5.2
0
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
5.2
0
III. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
There is insufficient evidence to make any conclusions.
322
BENJAMIN S. CARSON PREPARATORY ACADEMY
CLOSED Principal: Flora Goolsby SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Testing Coordinator: Nelta Lattimore
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
There is only statistical evidence that cheating occurred on the CRCT at Benjamin S.
Carson Preparatory Academy (Carson) in 2009. Twenty-one people were interviewed at this
school, some more than once.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
30
N/A
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
9
N/A
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
5(3)
N/A
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
4.7
N/A
High Flagged Standard Deviation
9.4
N/A
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
N/A
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
In 2009, Carson contained about 125 eighth grade students. The sixth and seventh grades
had been moved to the new BEST Academy and only the eighth grade remained on site at
Carson. The school was a "Needs Improvement Year 8" school in its final year of existence.
Principal Flora Goolsby was assigned to Carson to help close the school. A state monitor, Joel
Standifer, was assigned to Carson on a full time basis. During administration of the CRCT, the
tests were stored in Principal Goolsby' s office, locked in a closet. The Testing Coordinator,
Nelta Lattimore, distributed and collected the tests from a cart in the hallway. After testing,
Lattimore said the tests were rolled back to Principal Goolsby' s office. A witness claimed that
the tests were rolled into Lattimore' s office and returned to Principal Goolsby' s office at the end
of each day.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Arthur Jones (Math Coach)
Arthur Jones taught at Benjamin Carson in 2009. He testified that he believes the school
was flagged due to the test-taking strategies he taught. He stated that he told students that when
there was not much time that they should mark "b" or "c" on the answer sheet and come back
later and erase the answer if they had time to work through the problem and found that the
answer was incorrect. Jones stated that some of the flagged teachers, specifically Ms. Shorter and
323
Charles Ball, would not have the knowledge to change math answers from wrong to right. He
claimed no knowledge of cheating at Carson.
Arthur Jones stated that any sixth grade teacher at an APS middle school can tell you that
there is cheating on the CRCT in APS elementary schools, and it is just accepted that the scores
are inflated.
2. Charles Ball (Teacher)
Charles Ball testified that it was "common knowledge" that cheating occurred in the
elementary schools. He stated that Arthur Jones sometimes referred to himself as "Top Gun"
and claimed to be the best math teacher. Ball's class was flagged at 6.6 for high wrong-to-right
erasures on the math portion of the CRCT.
3. Jacqueline Middlebrooks (Proctor)
Jacqueline Middlebrooks proctored in Ms. Shorter' s classroom and testified that Ms.
Shorter' s students were actually tested by a gifted teacher. Shorter' s classes were flagged in all
three subject areas.
4. Mary Gordon (Teacher)
Mary Gordon, a former teacher, testified that having seen the test scores, there was no
doubt there was cheating. She believed it could not have happened in the classroom due to lack
of time and that some teachers did not know sufficient math to change the answers.
5. Nelta Lattimore (Testing Coordinator)
Nelta Lattimore testified that she was a counselor assigned as testing coordinator and was
"scared to death" about anything going wrong with testing procedures. She stated that the tests
were returned to a table in the hallway, then were placed on a cart that she rolled into Principal
Flora Goolsby's office. She believed only the principal had the key. Lattimore did not believe
Principal Goolsby or other administrators would ever erase answers.
6. Joel Standi fer (State Monitor)
Joel Standifer was assigned to Carson as a full time monitor for the 2008-2009 school
year by the Georgia Department of Education because it was a "Needs Improvement Year 8"
school. The tests were returned to a table in the hall. They were then rolled into Nelta
Lattimore' s office and then later to the principal's office and stored overnight. He only observed
the first day of testing.
7. Marilyn Wallace (Secretary)
Marilyn Wallace was the principal's secretary and testified that Nelta Lattimore brought
the tests to the principal's office around 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. She stated that if there was cheating
on the tests it had to have happened while the tests were in Lattimore's office.
324
8. Flora Goolsby (Principal)
Flora Goolsby was assigned to Carson during the 2008-2009 school year to oversee the
closing of the school. The school was comprised of eighth grade only, with approximately 125
students. Many had extreme academic deficits or behavioral problems. She testified that the
teachers flagged with high wrong-to-right erasures were among those she "inherited" when she
was assigned to the school in 2008-2009. She stated that the tests were locked in her office.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
For the 2009 CRCT at Carson, 30% of the classes exceeded three standard deviations
from the State mean for wrong-to-right erasures. Five teachers had classes exceeding three
standard deviations. Although we have concerns, the evidence we observed does not warrant
further action.
325
C.W. HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CLOSED Principal: Yolanda Brown SRT-1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Testing Coordinator: Tracey Fletcher
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
There is limited statistical evidence that cheating occurred on the CRCT at C.W. Hill
Elementary in 2009. Because C.W. Hill closed at the end of 2009, only one witness was
interviewed at this school.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
29.4
N/A
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
15
N/A
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
7(4)
N/A
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
10.3
N/A
High Flagged Standard Deviation
25.1
N/A
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.7
N/A
III. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
For the 2009 CRCT at C.W. Hill, 29.4% of the classes exceeded three standard deviations
from the State mean for wrong-to-right erasures. Fifteen teachers had classes exceeding three
standard deviations. Although we have concerns, the evidence does not warrant further action.
326
ADAMSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
286 Wilson Mill Road Principal: Sharon Suitt SRT- 1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, Georgia 30331 Testing Coordinator: Lucille Gourdine
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
There is limited statistical evidence that cheating occurred on the CRCT at Adamsville
Elementary in 2009. Eleven people were interviewed at this school.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
27.8
1.9
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
20
1
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
10(7)
1(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
5.5
3.8
High Flagged Standard
9.7
3.8
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.2
3.8
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
For the 2009 CRCT at Adamsville, 27.8% of the classes exceeded three standard
deviations from the state mean for wrong-to-right erasures. Ten teachers had 20 classes
exceeding three standard deviations. In 2010, the percentages of classes with wrong-to-right
erasures exceeding three standard deviations from the state mean dropped significantly from
27.8% to 1.9%. Although we have concerns, the evidence does not warrant further action.
327
CASCADE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2326 Venetian Dr. Principal: Dr. Alfonso L. Jessie, Jr. SRT-1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, GA 30331 Testing Coordinator: Barbara Ash
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
There is only limited statistical evidence that cheating occurred at Cascade Elementary in
2009. Fourteen people were interviewed at this school, some more than once.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
28.8
1.9
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
19
1
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
10(6)
1(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
5.2
3.3
High Flagged Standard Deviation
13.7
3.3
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.2
3.3
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Dr. Alfonso Jessie (Principal)
Dr. Alfonso Jessie said there is pressure from APS to make targets and improve test
scores. SRT-1 Director Sharon Davis-Williams put Dr. Jessie on three PDPs when Cascade
failed to meet targets. On occasion Davis-Williams would ask Dr. Jessie what he was going to
do about a particular teacher whose students did not do well on the CRCT. Dr. Jessie testified
that he has no knowledge of anyone at Cascade cheating on the CRCT.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
Due to the statistical evidence and the testimony of witnesses, we cannot determine what
happened at Cascade. A number of teachers told investigators that there was no time limit within
which they had to turn the tests in to the testing coordinator. It is possible that the teachers had
time to prompt students or change answers in the classroom. No witnesses admitted to
prompting students or changing answers. Although we have concerns, the evidence does not
warrant further action.
328
HERITAGE ACADEMY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
3500 Villa Circle SE Principal: Yvonne Eternal SRT-2 Executive Director: Michael Pitts
Atlanta, Georgia 30354 Testing Coordinator: Meribell White
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
There is only limited statistical evidence that cheating occurred on the 2009 CRCT at
Heritage Academy Elementary. Eighteen people were interviewed at this school.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
28.2
9.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
22
7
Number of Teachers Flagged fro WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
17(4)
7(2)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
5.5
6.3
High Flagged Standard Deviation
10.6
11.0
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.0
3.0
III. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
For the 2009 CRCT at Heritage Academy, 28.2% of the classes exceeded three standard
deviations from the State mean for wrong-to-right erasures. Seventeen teachers had 22 classes
exceeding three standard deviations. In 2010, the percentage of classes with wrong-to-right
erasures exceeding three standard deviations from the State mean dropped from 28.2% to 9.3%.
The evidence we observed does not warrant further action.
329
UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY ACADEMY
2050 Tiger Flowers Drive, NW Principal: Dr. Jim Harris SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30314 Testing Coordinator: Tammy Miller
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Cheating occurred on the CRCT at University Community Academy (UCA) in 2009 and
other years. Two people confessed to cheating. Cheating at UCA is evidenced by confessions
and witness testimony. Twenty-six people were interviewed at UCA, some more than once.
Principal Jim Harris failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
25
4.2
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
5
3
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
4(1)
3(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
8.3
3.6
High Flagged Standard Deviation
13.9
4.3
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.3
3.2
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
Cheating occurred at UCA during CRCT testing in 2008 and 2009. One teacher
confessed to cheating in 2009 during CRCT testing. When students raised their hands during
testing, she provided answers. Her proctor was present but was reportedly unaware of the
teacher's actions. Three proctors said teachers for whom they proctored cheated. Melvin
McClain circulated among the lower achieving students in his class during 2008 and 2009
testing, and read off a series of answers for the students. Haron Wood confessed that he also
provided answers for McClain' s students.
Wanda Nevett was implicated by two of her proctors for cheating.
Wanda Williams was implicated by her proctor and other witnesses for cheating during
2009 CRCT testing. Williams would go to students who raised their hand and provide answers.
B. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Christine Clyne (Teacher)
Christine Clyne confessed to cheating on the CRCT in 2009. Clyne admitted to cheating
by providing students with answers during testing. She said she gave answers to students who
raised their hands. Her proctor was unaware of what she was doing. Clyne was unaware of
330
anyone else in the school engaging in similar behavior. A combination of personal pressure and
pressure from Principal Harris may have motivated her actions. She was accused of testing
improprieties while teaching at another school several years ago.
2. Dr. Jim Harris (Principal)
Dr. Jim Harris was the Principal of UCA in 2009. Principal Harris denied knowledge of
cheating. Although he had a statistics background and understood the meaning of high standard
deviations, he refused to believe that cheating could account for the high erasures at UCA.
Principal Harris appeared surprised when shown the names of the flagged teachers, many of
whom he had recruited from other schools. He admitted hiring Clyne despite knowledge of
previous allegations of cheating made against her at another school. He denied putting pressure
on teachers. When informed that some had made confessions and implicated others, Principal
Harris refused to believe that cheating was possible because testing procedures were tight. He
claimed he personally went from room to room monitoring the school during testing.
3. Haron Wood (Proctor)
Haron Wood proctored for Melvin McClain in 2009 and for a few days in 2008. Wood
testified that during 2008 and 2009 CRCT testing in McClain' s sixth grade class, McClain would
walk around the class and "blatantly" provide answers to the students. Wood stated that
McClain would stand over particular students, instruct them to write quickly and read them a
series of 10 to 15 answers. Some students had already filled in wrong answers, which they
erased and changed to the right answers provided by McClain. Other students left questions
unanswered and waited for McClain to come over and provide answers. McClain had materials
in hand to assist him in providing answers. McClain focused on the lower achieving students
and left the higher performing students alone.
Wood admitted to providing some students with answers during testing in McClain' s
class during CRCT testing.
Wood said he also proctored for Wanda Nevett during 2008 CRCT testing. He said that
in 2008 Nevett cheated by using voice inflection to give her students answers. Wanda Nevett
would also walk around and "abruptly" inform students when they had missed a question and
provide the correct answer. If a student was taking too long to fill in an answer, Nevett would
tell the child, "What is taking so long, the answer is ."
4. Rhonda Smith (Proctor)
Rhonda Smith worked as a lunchroom assistant and served as a proctor for Wanda
Williams in 2009. Smith stated that Williams went to students who raised their hands during
CRCT testing and gave them the answer. Smith could hear Williams providing answers.
Students sometimes asked Smith for the answers, but because it was sixth grade and she was
unsure of the correct answer, she would summon Williams over to the student, and Williams
provided the student with the answer. Smith observed that Williams had papers in her desk
drawer that she appeared to be referencing. Smith said she knew there were different versions of
the test and did not know how Williams had access to the correct information.
331
5. MeiTei Smith (Proctor)
MeiTei Smith was a proctor for Wanda Nevett in 2009. Smith stated that during the 2009
CRCT, Nevett walked around the classroom and erased on students' test books as she
administered the test. Smith was uncertain whether Nevett was erasing answers. Nevett walked
around the room pointing at students' test books, but Smith was not certain if Nevett was
prompting them to change their answers. Nevett used voice inflection when reading answer
choices. Nevett read the questions more than twice which Smith knew to be a testing violation.
6. Tammy Miller (Testing Coordinator)
Tammy Miller was the Testing Coordinator in 2009. She denied any knowledge of
cheating.
7. Shirley Shivers (Tutor & Proctor)
Shirley Shivers was a tutor and proctor in 2009. A proctor or monitor told Shivers that
Wanda Williams' classroom door was locked during the CRCT. Students said that Wanda
Williams and Melvin McClain provided answers during testing. Shivers said that if cheating
occurred, it would have taken place in the classroom.
8. Kimberly Lucas (Teacher)
Students told Kimberly Lucas that Wanda Williams cheated by using coughing as a
signal. Williams coughed a certain number of times to indicate the correct answer. Lucas was
flagged in math with a standard deviation above 12, which she could not explain. She said most
of her students "sucked" in math.
9. Janice Mencey (Counselor)
Janice Mencey was the school counselor in 2009. She assisted testing coordinator
Tammy Miller with the test materials. Mencey denied cheating or knowledge of cheating;
however, she admitted that even if she had information about cheating she might not disclose it
to us. She stated that if she told anyone, it would most likely be the principal.
C. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Melvin McClain (Teacher)
Melvin McClain stated that the majority of his students performed at high levels and that
their success was due to his "teaching to the test" methodology and emphasis on the CRCT
coach book. He stated that everywhere he has worked, the administration placed him in grades
that needed the most work to raise test scores. McClain took pride in calling himself "the
disciplinarian of the school." McClain could provide no explanation for his high wrong to right
erasures.
332
2. Wanda Williams (Teacher)
Wanda Williams was a sixth grade teacher at UCA. She was flagged in all three subject
areas. She stated that if anyone claimed she provided answers to students, they were lying.
Williams did not believe that any student would be angry enough to accuse her of cheating. She
claimed that she did not have the ability to answer some of the math problems on the test. She
denied that her doors were locked during the test. Williams erased stray marks but denies
changing answers.
3. Wanda Nevett (Teacher)
Wanda Nevett was one of two first grade teachers at UCA and had over 30 years of
teaching experience. She and the other teacher, Torri Brown, split the first grade students into
high and low performing groups, and Wanda Nevett taught the lower achieving students. At her
first interview, Nevett claimed that the high erasures might have been the result of her "body
language." Her students knew her so well that they knew what she was trying to say without her
having to say anything. Nevett believed the erasures took place in her classroom and that the
tests were not tampered with after leaving her classroom. She denied erasing anything on the
students' tests, including stray marks. Nevett was unsure how many times she was allowed to
read the questions and admitted she probably read them more than twice.
At her second interview, Nevett claimed she read some questions substituting language
familiar to her students. When advised that she was seen walking around making erasures on
students' tests, she denied erasing answers but claimed she was erasing stray marks. She
admitted she lied at her first interview, claiming she was scared. Nevett testified that the only
thing she did that may have influenced the students' answers was changing the language when
she read some questions, and hitting a student's desk and saying "pay attention!" Nevett denies
pointing to answers on the test.
D. Other Evidence
Haron Wood believed that teachers at UCA provided assistance to students during test
administration as a result of pressure placed by Principal Jim Harris. Principal Harris told the
staff that the school must make AYP "by any means necessary." Wood believed that several
teachers helped their students cheat.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that cheating occurred at UCA in 2008 and 2009.
We conclude that Christine Clyde, Haron Wood, Melvin McClain, Wanda Williams, and
Wanda Nevitt cheated on the CRCT.
Principal Harris exerted pressure to make AYP. We conclude that Principal Harris either
knew or should have known that cheating occurred. He created an atmosphere where teachers
felt it was necessary to cheat.
333
Principal Jim Harris failed in his responsibility for testing activities and for ensuring the
ethical administration of, and proper security for, the 2009 CRCT. It is clear from the statistical
data, and the other evidence with regard to cheating in the APS system, that Harris failed to
properly monitor the 2009 CRCT, adequately supervise testing activities and test security. This
resulted in, and he is responsible for, falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the
results of the 2009 CRCT to the Georgia Department of Education.
334
WILLIAMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CLOSED Principal: Mary Joyce Harris SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Testing Coordinator: Teresa Ayers
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
Williams Elementary had six flagged teachers in 2009, and closed at the end of the 2008-
2009 school year. Each of those flagged teachers administered the test to seven or fewer
students. Given the small sample size of each flagged classroom, and the fact that it is closed,
we did not interview anyone at this school.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
20.4
N/A
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
11
N/A
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
6(3)
N/A
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
6.9
N/A
High Flagged Standard Deviation
11.8
N/A
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.5
N/A
III. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We have no opinion on whether there was cheating at Williams, but do not believe it
warrants any further investigation.
335
HERNDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
350 Temple Street Principal: Betty Tinsley SRT-1 Executive Director: Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams
Atlanta, Georgia 30314 Testing Coordinator: Patrice Lisbon
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
There is limited statistical evidence that cheating occurred on the CRCT at Herndon
Elementary in 2009. Fourteen people were interviewed at this school.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
20.4
1.9
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
11
1
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
5(3)
1(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
5
3.7
High Flagged Standard Deviation
7.3
3.7
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.1
3.7
III. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
For the 2009 CRCT at Herndon, 20.4% of the classes exceeded three standard deviations
from the state mean for wrong-to-right erasures. Eleven classes exceeded three standard
deviations. Seven of these classes were first and second grade classes. In 2010 the percentages
of classes with wrong-to-right erasures exceeding three standard deviations from the state mean
dropped significantly from 20.4% to 1.9%. Although we have concerns, the evidence does not
warrant further action.
We note that the report made by Dr. Jackie Boyce in 2009, regarding a student saying a
teacher at Herndon helped the students with answers, was not properly investigated by APS at
the time. The evidence with regard to that matter was stale by the time of this investigation.
336
BOLTON ACADEMY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2268 Adams Drive, NW Principal: Laura Strickling SRT-4 Executive Director: Tamara Cotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30318 Testing Coordinator: Pamela Patterson
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
There is only limited statistical evidence that cheating occurred on the 2009 CRCT at
Bolton Academy Elementary, and this evidence lacks sufficient detail upon which to base further
action. Ten teachers were interviewed at this school.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
15.9
4.5
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
11
3
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
5(4)
1(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
5.9
3.6
High Flagged Standard Deviation
9.7
4.0
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.0
3.0
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Testimony of Witnesses
1. Ameera Lucky (Teacher)
Ameera Lucky witnessed teachers erasing stray marks as a group in the conference room
in 2009.
Lucky also stated that Principal Strickling routinely backdated materials such as
evaluations, observations, and receipt of documents. Some teachers reported this to SRT-4
Director Tamara Cotman, but Cotman took no action. After the teachers reported this conduct to
Cotman, Principal Strickling sent a memorandum ordering teachers to send correspondence to
Cotman through Principal Strickling.
Teachers at Bolton were told that if GBI agents came to their homes, they were to tell the
agents they could only interview them through Principal Strickling.
2. Tabitha Stroud (Teacher)
Tabitha Stroud believes voice inflection was used to prompt first and second grade
students on the CRCT.
Principal Strickling asked Stroud to backdate documents on more than one occasion.
Stroud heard other teachers complain that Principal Strickling put false information in their
337
personnel files. All of this was reported to SRT Executive Director Cotman, but Cotman never
responded to the teachers' concerns. Principal Strickling e-mailed the teachers and instructed
them not to correspond with Cotman anymore.
3. Pamela Patterson (Testing Coordinator)
Pamela Patterson denied cheating or knowledge of cheating, and denied she erased any
stray marks in 2009. Patterson is aware of teachers complaining that the previous year's CRCT
score of a particular student did not match up with their abilities. Patterson implied that
generally this was because the teacher did not feel he or she could prepare the student as well.
On one occasion a teacher brought this concern to her and she concurred that the student's score
was surprising.
4. Kristi Tompkins (Teacher)
Kristi Tompkins heard that Theresa Powell gave answers to her students on the 2008
CRCT. Tompkins heard Powell was "dealt with" by APS but does not know any further details.
B. Testimony of Individuals Implicated
1. Laura Strickling (Principal)
Laura Strickling denied knowledge of cheating.
2. Theresa Powell (Teacher)
Theresa Powell was suspended for thirty days for improperly prompting students on the
2008 CRCT. She said that she told the students to "check their answers and make sure they are
correct." She recognized this was a testing violation and submitted to the suspension.
According to Powell, she was surprised to see that she was flagged. She had specifically
requested and been given a proctor for the 2009 CRCT. She says she would not have had an
opportunity to cheat. If anyone erased answers it must have been the teacher who administered
the test to her ESOL students with accommodations or the administration.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
Although we have concerns, especially regarding the possible attempts by Principal
Strickling to interfere with this investigation, the evidence we observed does not warrant further
action.
338
MORNINGSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1053 East Rock Springs Road Principal: Rebecca Pruitt SRT-3 Executive Director: Dr. Gloria Patterson
Atlanta, Georgia 30306 Testing Coordinator: Kori Sanchez
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
There is only limited statistical evidence that cheating occurred on the CRCT at
Morningside Elementary in 2009. Five people were interviewed at this school, some more than
once.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
2009
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
3.2
4.9
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
4
5
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
4(0)
5(0)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
3.9
3.8
High Flagged Standard Deviation
4.8
4.3
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.2
3.4
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Narrative
In 2009, four teachers were flagged for having wrong-to-right erasures higher than the
State mean. During the course of this investigation, allegations were made that Elizabeth
Richman told a teacher at Springdale Park Elementary that teachers at Morningside instructed
their students to leave questions blank when they did not know the answers, allowing the
teachers to fill in the correct answers later. Elizabeth Richman denied making that statement,
and denied any knowledge of cheating on the CRCT.
One teacher testified that although teachers were required to turn their CRCT materials in
immediately after testing, "no one checked on teachers to make sure their tests were turned in
immediately."
B. Testimony of Witnesses
I. Elizabeth Richman (Teacher)
Elizabeth Richman denied telling anyone that teachers at Morningside instructed students
to leave answers blank and filling the answers in later. She stated that she had no knowledge of
cheating on the CRCT, but that teachers were not "checked on" to make sure they turned in their
CRCT materials immediately after testing.
339
2. Rebecca Pruitt (Principal)
Rebecca Pruitt denied any knowledge of cheating on the 2009 CRCT.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
For the 2009 CRCT at Morningside, 3.2% of the classes exceeded three standard
deviations from the state mean for wrong-to-right erasures. Four teachers had classes exceeding
three standard deviations. Two of these classes were first and second grade classes. In 2010 the
percentages of classes with wrong-to-right erasures exceeding three standard deviations from the
State mean grew from 3.2% to 4.9%, consisting of one classroom that tested one student. The
evidence we observed does not warrant further action.
340
MORRIS BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2741 Howell Mill Road Northwest Principal: Karen Evans SRT-4 Executive Director: TamaraCotman
Atlanta, Georgia 30327 Testing Coordinator: Peter Settelmayer
T. TNVESTTGATTVE SUMMARY
We found no evidence of cheating at Morris Brandon. Six people were interviewed at
this school, some more than once.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
20(19
2010
Percentage of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
1
4.3
Number of Classrooms Flagged for WTR Erasures
1
5
Number of Teachers Flagged for WTR Standard Deviations above
3.0 (Number of Teachers Flagged in Multiple Subjects)
1(0)
4(1)
Mean WTR Standard Deviations from State Norm
5.8
3.4
High Flagged Standard Deviation
3.8
3.8
Low Flagged Standard Deviation
3.8
3.1
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
In 2009, Sarah Elizabeth Visel was the only teacher flagged for high wrong-to-right
erasures. While Visel was the only homeroom teacher identified by the state, she did not
administer the CRCT in 2009. She was out on maternity leave. The test was actually
administered by Omema Martin and proctored by Judith Maisonneuve. Both Martin and
Maisonneuve denied any knowledge of cheating. We conclude that there was no cheating at
Morris Brandon given the low standard deviations for both 2009 and 2010, the small number of
classrooms flagged, coupled with the lack of other evidence.
IV. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
We conclude that there was not cheating at Morris Brandon on the 2009 CRCT. No
further investigation is needed.
341
2009 VS. 2010
The GOSA erasure analysis performed on the 2010 CRCT provides
additional proof of cheating in 2009 and other years. By the time the CRCT was
administered in the spring of 20 1 0, the GOSA 2009 erasure analysis had been
made public and Governor Perdue ordered the district to investigate the flagged
schools. Media attention was focused on the district, and the state sent
representatives to some of the district schools to observe administration of the test.
Following the 2010 CRCT, GOSA commissioned another erasure analysis.
That study revealed a dramatic drop in WTR erasures, and consequently, the
overall percentage of classes flagged plummeted in virtually every school in the
"moderate" and "severe" concern categories. For example. Parks Middle School,
with the highest percentage of classes flagged in Georgia in 2009, dropped from
89.5% in 2009, to 4% in 2010. Gideons Elementary went from 88.4% to 25%;
FX. Stanton Elementary from 83.3% to 7.1%.
We presented the principals of these schools with the 20 i 0 erasure analysis
and asked for an explanation of the precipitous drops in flagged classes. Many
claimed that some students were afraid to erase in 20 10 because of the media
cov erage surrounding the erasure analysis. None of those principals offered proof
that the students actually erased less. A few principals recalled an occasional
342
student or parent asking whether it was okay to erase. Most confirmed that
teachers still encouraged students to erase when necessary.
The problem with the "students are afraid to erase" explanation is that it
assumes that the students were erasing in the first place. It is possible that
students' reticence to erase may account for some drops in flagged classes in a few
schools. It does not account for the 85 percentage point decrease at Parks, and the
significant drops at schools where we have confirmed cheating occurred.
Cook Elementary and BEST Academy provide a distressing example of how
the presence of state monitors (and not the students' fears) resulted in fewer
flagged classes. Cook Elementary had 40.7% of its classes flagged in 2009, and
we found direct evidence of coordinated cheating by Principal LaPaul Shelton on
the 2009 CRC I . In contrast, BEST Academy was "clear of concern" in 2009. In
2010, the district transferred LaPaul Shelton to BEST Academy to serve as
principal. There were no state monitors at BEST because it had previously been
"clear of concern." Apparently, Shelton has engaged in the same improper
practices at BEST that he did at Cook in 2009. The percentage of classes flagged
at BEST increased from 3.9% in 2009 to 19.4% in 2010. At Cook, where state
monitors supervised the CRCT administration in 2010, and Shelton was no longer
the principal, the percentage of flagged classes fell to 5%. This shift between
Cook and BEST shows that the percentage of flagged classes at Cook dropped not
343
because the students stopped erasing, but perhaps because Principal Shelton was
removed.
344
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PERCENTAGE OF CLASSES WITH FLAGGED WTR'S
2009
^ni ft
ZU1U
Parks Middle
on
c
3
4.0
Gideons Elementary
o o
88
A
4
25.0
Peyton Forest
86
1
26.1
F L Stanton
83
3
7.1
Usher Elementary
78
4
13.3
Venetian Hill
75
4
1.5
Capitol View
70
O
8
19.0
Connally Elementary
/o
5
9.9
Dunbar Elementary
68
6
22.2
Scott Elementary
/CO
Do
A
(J
1.4
Perkerson Elementary
66
7
7.0
Blalock Elementary
66
7
closed
Towns Elemental y
63
6
12.1
Woodson Elementary
/TO
63
3
15.7
Whitefoord Elementary
59
3
13.3
D H Stanton Elementary
58
3
17.6
Boyd Elementary
3D
1
15.7
West Manor Elementary
C A
54
a
9
28.9
Turner Middle
C A
54
0
9.3
Kennedy Middle
2
6.0
Fickett Elementary
5 1
A
4
9.3
Finch Elementary
A O
48
0
10.3
Deerwood Academy
A T
47
o
8
8.6
White Elementary
A H
47
A
4
22.9
Hutchinson Elementary
A T
47
A
0
1.6
Humphries Elementary
A /'
46
7
10.4
Benteen Elementary
43
1
0.0
Beecher Hills
42
6
2.4
East Lake Elementary
A O
42
0
0.0
Cook Elementary
a r\
40
7
5.0
Fain Elementary
39
1
18.8
Thomasville H
39
1
7.2
Dobbs Elementary
33
3
6.9
Crim High School
33
3
0.0
Coan Middle School
31
4
3.3
Slater Elementary
30
3
5.2
Benjamin S Carson
30
0
C W Hill Elementary
29
4
closed
Cascade Elementary
28
8
1.9
Heritage Academy
28
2
9.3
Adamsville Elementary
27
8
1.9
345
School
luuy
lulu
Cleveland Elementary
26. 1
8.3
University Co
25.0
4.2
Harper Archer
24. 1
0.7
M A Jones Elementary
23. 1
7.8
Beth une Elementary
23. 1
3.3
Miles Elementary
21. 7
2.9
Toomer Elementary
21.4
0.0
Parkside Elementary
21.3
4.3
Williams Elementary
20.4
closed
Herndon Elementary
20.4
1.9
Grove Park Elementary
20.0
4.5
The Bridge
16.7
0.0
Bolton Academy
15.9
4.5
Imagine Wesle
13.7
3.2
Long Middle
12.4
13.9
Kimberly Elementary
11.7
7.9
Young Middle
11.4
3.9
Sylvan Hills
10.4
3.0
Garden Hills
9
7
6.9
Brown Middle
9
3
7.5
Continental C
9
1
12.3
Bunche Middle
7
5
2.8
Burgess Peter
7
1
0.0
King Middle
6
1
3.4
Charles R. Drew
5
1
1.0
Inman Middle
4
5
5.0
The Best Academy
3
9
19.4
Kipp West Elementary
3
9
7.8
Jackson Elementary
3
7
6.3
Coretta Scott
3
7
5.6
Morningside Elementary
3
2
4.9
Atlanta Charter
3
0
0.0
Hope Elementary
2
8
5.0
Price Middle
2
2
4.8
Smith Elementary
1
0
1.9
Brandon Elementary
1
0
4.3
Sutton Middle
0
9
1.9
Lin Elementary
0
0
0.0
Rivers Elementary
0
0
1.5
Centennial PI
0
0
3.0
Neighborhood
0
0
2.2
APSCEP Partner
0
0
0.0
Hillside Con a
0
0
0.0
346
GLOSSARY
TERM
DEFINITION
APS
Atlanta Public Schools. An independent school system in the City
of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. Officially the "Atlanta
Independent School System."
AYP
Adequate Yearly Progress. Part of the federal No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, AYP is a measure of year-to-year student
achievement on statewide assessments. Schools, school districts,
and states must demonstrate a certain level of performance on
reading and/or language arts and mathematics assessments.
Schools that do not "meet AYP" for two consecutive years in the
same subject area are designated as schools in "Needs
Improvement."
Certified educator
Individuals trained in education who hold teaching, leadership,
service, technical specialist, or permit certification issued by the
PSC.
Classroom level data
CRCT erasure analysis data for specific teacher or homeroom,
including the subject tested, number of students, total number of
wrong to right erasures, and resulting standard deviation.
Confessed
Admitted to the truth of a charge or accusation.
Convocation
Annual celebration held by APS to recognize schools that have
met at least 70 percent of its performance targets. All APS
schools' faculty are expected to attend.
CRCT
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test. A standardized test
used by Georgia as the AYP assessment tool for elementary and
middle schools. Tests grades 1-8 in reading, English/language
arts, and math. In addition, grades 3-8 are tested in science and
social studies.
ELA
English /language arts
Fifth (5th) Amendment
The privilege against self-incrimination grounded in the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, providing that no person
will be compelled to be a witness against himself. In a criminal
case, if a defendant invokes the 5th Amendment and refuses to
testify, he may not be presumed guilty based on that refusal.
However, in a civil case, if a witness invokes the 5th Amendment
and refuses to answer questions concerning whether he or she
committed a particular act, "it creates an implied admission that a
truthful answer would tend to prove that the witness had
committed the act." Perez v. Atlanta Check Cashers, Inc., 302
Ga. App. 864, 870 (2010).
GOSA
Governor' s Office of Student Achievement. State agency which
provides accountability for Georgia's schools, pre-K through
postsecondary levels. The intent is to improve student
achievement and school completion in Georgia.
GTR MP
Unique identification number assigned to each student.
347
IEP
Individualized Education Program. Free, appropriate, public
special education services which students with certain disabilities
or impairments are eligible to receive. An IEP is a written plan
developed by a team of teachers, other qualified personnel,
parents, guardians, and the student if appropriate.
Implicated
Shown to be also involved, usually in an incriminating manner.
LA
Language arts
MA
Mathematics
Makes the floor
At Convocation, schools that "make the floor" have met at least
70 percent of its targets. Those schools" faculty members are
seated in groups on the floor of the host venue, with the schools
meeting the highest percentage of its targets seated closest to the
stage. Schools that do not make the floor are seated in bleachers
or other remote seating.
Meets, exceeds
Refers to a measurement, usually expressed as a percentage, of
students who "met" or "exceeded" state standards in certain core
curriculum subjects (math, reading, English/language arts,
science, and social students) as measured by the CRCT.
Monitors
Persons assigned to a school to observe test administration
procedures; e.g. test distribution, test collection, storage of test
materials. Observes testing sites to see that schedules are being
followed, reports unusual activity.
out
APS Office of Internal Resolution/Employee Relations.
Processes and investigates complaints and reports of employee
wrongdoing and related employment matters.
Parapro/ paraprofessi onal
A person who may have less than professional-level certification,
who relates in role and function to a professional and does a
portion of the professional's job under the professional's
supervision, and whose decision-making authority is limited and
regulated by the professional. O.C.G.A. § 20-2-204. Georgia
paraprofessi onal s must be certified by the PSC.
PDP
Professional Development Plan. A plan developed and
implemented to correct perceived deficiencies in performance of
teachers and administrators, used to encourage and support
improvement in specific areas.
PEC
Program for Exceptional Children. Program offering specialized,
educational testing, evaluation and other services to eligible
children with certain disabilities or impairments. Each eligible
student must have an IEP.
Preponderance of the evidence
A standard of proof in civil cases. Evidence which is of greater
weight or more conv incing than the evidence which is offered in
opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the
fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Proctors
Persons assigned to monitor classrooms or other specific areas
during testing; circulate to observe students and discourage
misconduct; assist test examiner to maintain testing security;
report unusual activity or irregularities.
348
Prompting
Assisting students during testing by use of verbal or nonverbal
cues. Examples include voice inflection, pointing to answers,
repetition or rephrasing of words or passages, physical cues,
movements, sounds, or signals meant to suggest or convey the
answer or encourage students to erase and change an answer.
PSC
Georgia Professional Standards Commission. A state agency
created "to set and apply high standards for the preparation,
certification, and continued licensing of Georgia public
educators." The PSC also handles the investigation and due
process of cases referred for disciplinary action.
RD
Reading
RPA
APS' Department of Research, Planning and Accountability.
Among other functions, RPA manages and oversees all testing
programs at APS.
Social promotion
The practice of promoting a student from one grade level to the
next on the basis of age rather than academic achievement.
SRTs
School Reform Teams APS is organized into four (4)
geographically aligned areas comprised of elementary and middle
schools, each headed by an executive director. The structure is
meant to provide greater accountability and faster service to
schools and parents.
Standard deviation
A measure of the variability or di spersion of a distribution of
scores that represents the average difference between individual
scores and the mean. The more the scores cluster around the
mean, the smaller the standard deviation.
Student level data
CRCT erasure analysis data for each individual student for each
subject tested (RD, ELA, MA) showing the total number of
erasures made on that test, and the number of those erasures that
changed from wrong to right.
Stray marks
Pencil markings made on answer sheets that are visible outside of
the "bubble" or oval area where answer choices are to be marked.
Targets
An accountability program implemented by APS, consisting of
specific performance goals set for each school at the beginning of
the school year. The targets are based on quantifiable measures,
primarily CRCT test scores, and also include factors such as
student attendance, and enrollment in rigorous academic courses.
Testing accommodation
A change in a test administration that modifies how a student
takes or responds to the assessment. Accommodations are
designed to provide equity and serve to level the playing field for
students with disabilities and English Language Learners.
Totality of the evidence
Finding or conclusion based on all of the circumstances of a
particular case, rather than any one factor.
WTR
Wrong To Right = an incorrect answer choice is erased and
changed to a correct answer choice on an answer sheet, as
detected by erasure analysis using high speed optical scanners.
349
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 3
Questions 350
Why Cheating Occurred 350
Targets 350
Culture of Fear 356
Dr. Jackie Boyce 357
Jimmy e Hawkins 359
Michael Milstead 361
Former High-Level Official 361
Patrick Crawford 362
Santhia Curtis 363
Teachers 365
Ethics 365
Early Warnings 366
Allegations of Cover-Up 368
Parks Middle School 368
Investigation at Parks 369
Meeting with Senior Leadership 371
Retaliation by Waller 374
Dramatic Gains at Parks 374
Deerwood Academy 378
Alteration and Destruction of Documents 383
Porter and Reeves Reports 385
Media Request for Porter Report 389
APS Reaction to GOSA 390
Blue Ribbon Commission 392
Test Security 395
KPMG and APS Interviews 396
APS Response to BRC Report 398
The Business Community 401
Findings 402
Dr. Sharon Davis-Williams 406
Michael Pitts 406
Tamara Cotman 407
Veleter Mazyck 408
Millicent Few 408
Dr. Kathy Augustine 408
Dr. Beverly Hall 409
Glossary 411
QUESTIONS
Without question, cheating occurred in APS on the CRCT in 2009 and
previous years. The erasure analysis is no longer a mere red flag, but is supported
by confessions and other evidence of cheating in 78.6% of the elementary and
middle schools we investigated. We now address the questions: Why did cheating
occur at APS, and who knew about it?
WHY CHEATING OCCURRED
Three primary conditions led to widespread cheating on the 2009 CRCT:
• The targets set by the district were often unrealistic, especially
given their cumulative effect over the years. Additionally, the
administration put unreasonable pressure on teachers and
principals to achieve targets;
• A culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation spread throughout
the district; and,
• Dr. Hall and her administration emphasized test results and
public praise to the exclusion of integrity and ethics.
TARGETS
The unreasonable pressure to meet annual "targets" was the primary
motivation for teachers and administrators to cheat on the CRCT in 2009 and
previous years. Virtually every teacher who confessed to cheating spoke of the
inordinate stress the district placed on meeting targets and the dire consequences
for failure. Dr. Hall articulated it as: "No exceptions. No excuses." If principals
did not meet targets within three years, she declared, they will be replaced and "I
will find someone who will meet targets." Dr. Hall replaced 90% of the principals
350
during her tenure. Principals told teachers that failure to improve CRCT scores
would result in negative evaluations or job termination. The unambiguous
message was to meet targets by any means necessary.
We do not express any opinion as to the merits of targets. However, targets
were implemented by APS in such a way that teachers and administrators believed
that they had to choose between cheating to meet targets or failing to meet targets
and losing their jobs.
When Dr. Beverly Hall became superintendent in 1 999. she implemented
many new programs and educational strategies. Dr. Hall managed the district by
relying heavily upon data, as opposed to being a hands-on leader. In this regard,
she implemented the "target" program, which held teachers and principals
responsible for student achievement. These targets were used to quantify
expectations so that academic progress was measurable, based primarily on the
prior years' CRCT results.
The major difference between APS targets and AYP standards is that under
the target system, a school is not only required to move students from the bottom
to the middle (i.e., from the "not meets" standards to the "meets" standards
category on the CRCT), but schools are also required to move students from the
middle to the top (i.e., from "meets" standards to "exceeds" standards). In this
way, a school must focus on improving achievement for both lower performing
and higher performing students.
351
Targets are set annually by the APS administration and approved by the
Board of Education. The administration, with assistance from an outside
consultant, sets these targets for the district, every school and each grade. The
administration notifies the schools of their targets in terms of a percentage. For
example, one target at a school might be to increase the percentage of students
"exceeding" standards in math by 3%, while at the same time reducing the number
of students "not meeting" math standards by 2%. This allows each teacher in
every classroom to know exactly how many students must "meet" or "exceed" the
target objective.
Low-performing schools are required to improve by a greater margin each
year than higher-performing schools. Thus, a higher burden is placed upon the
1 o wer-perform i ng schools.
As schools achieve their targets, the next year, the targets increase. For
example, if 60% of last year's fourth grade students met expectations in math on
the CRCT, then this year that target might increase to 63%. Targets are set based
upon the previous year's group of students. According to teachers and
administrators, this element of targets, combined with the fact that the targets
increase every year, makes them unreasonable. For instance, if last year's fourth
graders were mostly high-performing students, but the fourth grade class this year
contains more low performers, the fourth grade targets are still set based on last
year's high performing students" scores. Teachers and administrators we
352
interviewed consistently referred to this as "comparing apples to oranges" rather
than "apples to apples."
Schools that meet 70% of their targets receive bonuses for every employee,
from bus drivers to the principal. These bonuses range from $50 to $2000 per
person, depending on what percentage of the targets the school as a whole
achieves. Dr. Hall stood to financially gain based on whether the district met
targets. Over the years, she received tens of thousands of dollars based on the
reported CRCT results.
Schools that meet targets will "make the floor" at Convocation, the district's
annual, system-wide celebration held at the Georgia Dome to recognize schools
that make targets and improve CRCT scores. Attendance by all faculty and
administrators is mandator}'. Faculty at schools that hit targets sit "on the floor."
Those that do not make targets are relegated to sit in the uppermost sections of the
Dome. Throughout this investigation, it became clear that for many in the district,
especially principals, it was extremely important to "make the floor."
On the other hand, if a school fails to meet targets, its principal and teachers
are likely to be placed on a professional development plan (PDP) and receive
negative performance evaluations. Some are terminated. Student achievement
comprises 25% of principals* evaluations, the single heaviest weighted item. Dr.
Hall made it clear that if within three years a school does not meet targets, then she
will replace the principal with someone who will. Principals put the same pressure
353
on teachers to meet targets by placing teachers on PDPs, publicly humiliating
them, or threatening termination. The PDP is supposed to be a tool for helping
teachers and principals improve areas of weakness. Instead, the PDP became a
weapon to punish and threaten teachers for having low test scores. The message
heard by teachers and principals was that the only way out of a PDP was to
increase test scores.
We repeatedly heard from teachers, principals and Dr. Hall, that APS is a
"data driven system." Almost without exception, teachers and principals said that
the single most important factor to this administration is "data." They said that
"data is the driver," "data drives instruction," and "the data controls everything."
We heard this system-wide mantra from virtually every witness.
Data can be properly used as a tool to assess academic progress. But data
can also be used as an abusive and cruel weapon to embarrass and punish
classroom teachers and principals or as a pretext to termination. After hundreds of
interviews, it has become clear that Dr. Hall and her staff used data as a way to
exert oppressive pressure to meet targets.
When principals, in groups of 10 to 12, met annually with Dr. Hall, each
school's scores were displayed on large colorful graphs framed and hung on the
wall around her conference room. During the meeting. Dr. Hall would ask each
principal, one by one, "are you going to meet targets this year?" No one dared tell
her "no."
354
Many principals humiliated teachers in front of their peers for failing to meet
targets. For example, at Fain Elementary School, the principal forced a teacher to
crawl under a table in a faculty meeting because that teacher's students' test scores
were low. In other schools, principals told teachers that if they could not meet
targets or AYP, they might be subject to disciplinary action or they should find
another profession. Administrators used these types of tactics even though they
knew, as they told us, that the targets set for the schools were unreasonable.
The monetary bonus for meeting targets provided little incentive to cheat.
But fear of termination and public ridicule in faculty and principals meetings drove
numerous educators to cross ethical lines. Further, because targets rose annually,
teachers found it increasingly difficult to achieve them. After a few years of
increases, teachers found the targets unattainable and resorted to cheating.
Multiple years of test misconduct in the district compounded the level of cheating
that was required annually to not only match the prior year's false scores but also
to surpass them. The gap between where the students were academically and the
targets they were trying to reach grew larger.
The cumulative effect of cheating over a decade on the CRCT made meeting
targets more difficult with each passing year. To maintain the gains of the past
years while achieving the target of the current year required more cheating than in
prior years. Once cheating started it became a house of cards that collapsed upon
itself.
355
APS is indeed a "data driven system," and whether or not a school meets
targets is the most important data of all. What has become clear through our
investigation is that ultimately, the data, and meeting "targets" by whatever means
necessary, became more important than true academic progress.
Pressure to meet targets and improve students* CRCT scores was the single,
most frequent explanation given by teachers for why they cheated. Most teachers,
and many principals, described an oppressive environment at APS where the entire
focus of the district had become achieving test scores rather than teaching children.
Incremental, yearly progress by students was not enough unless the school met
targets. Individual student progress was not as important as the school, as a whole,
increasing its overall CRCT scores. In the end, meeting targets became more about
the adults than the children.
CULTURE OF FEAR
Dr. Hall and her top staff created a culture of fear, intimidation and
retaliation, which was usually enforced on principals and teachers by some of the
SRT executive directors. Many witnesses said that after reporting cheating, or
some other misconduct, they became the subject of an investigation and were
disciplined.
This culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation has infested the district,
allowing cheating — at all levels — to go unchecked for years. Those who dared to
356
report misconduct in the district were held in contempt and punished. For
example:
Dr. Jackie Boyce
Dr. Boyce worked for six years as a learning technology specialist in SRT-1 ,
which includes most of southwest Atlanta. He was assigned to monitor the
administration of the 2009 CRCT at Perkerson Elementary School, as he had done
for three previous years. Because of the small class sizes at this school, test
monitors did not remain in one classroom, but moved around the school. Several
times during the 2009 testing. Dr. Boyce says he observed teacher Lashaine Blake,
and others, improperly pointing out answers to students.
Dr. Boyce reported his observations to the principal. Dr. Mable Johnson, on
two occasions, but says she "blew [him] off." Boyce also wrote notations about
what he saw on the standardized test feedback form, the state-required document
filled out at the end of each day's testing. He gave the form directly to Dr. Sharon
Davis-Williams, Executive Director of SRT-1 . Dr. Davis-Williams did not ask
Boyce any details about the teachers* inappropriate conduct, nor did she tell him to
report his observations to anyone else. I n stead, Davis-Williams gave Boyce blank
forms and directed him to fill them out again without the notations about teachers
pointing out answers. She told Boyce that he could not write about what he saw on
the forms because "they are subject to the open records act." Davis-Williams kept
both the original and "corrected" forms.
357
During that same testing period in 2009, Dr. Boyce also worked at Hem don
Elementary. While Dr. Boyce was in the classroom of Yolanda Coleman, she
stepped into the hallway to speak with Dr. Betty Tinsley, the principal. As he
watched her class. Dr. Boyce spoke with the students and asked how they
performed on the CRCT. Several of the students shouted out that the teacher, Ms.
Coleman, had given them the answers. One child, who according to Boyce
apparently wanted to protect the teacher, said, "no, she was just giving us
examples" of test questions.
When Dr. Boyce told Ms. Coleman what her students said about the CRCT
answers, she became angry and accused Dr. Boyce of coercing the students to say
she cheated. Dr. Boyce also spoke to Principal Tinsley and explained to her what
happened. She stated she would deal with it.
Dr. Boyce was summoned to meet the next day with his immediate
supervisor. Dr. Tinsley, and SRT Executive Director Sharon Davis-Williams.
Davis- Williams accused Boyce of coercing children to say a teacher cheated, and
informed Boyce that she would be investigating him. Ultimately, Dr. Davis-
Williams gave Boyce a reprimand to be placed in his personnel file. (Ex. 1 1 ). In
this memorandum, the cheating allegations against the teacher were noted as
"unfounded." Boyce refused to sign the document because it was erroneous. He
was sanctioned for reporting possible cheating, while the accused teacher was
358
cleared by the SRT executive director without a proper inquiry, and in violation of
APS policies.
Jimmye Hawkins
On November 1 7, 20 1 0, Ms. Jimmye Hawkins was serving as an interim
principal at one of the "flagged" schools. Her immediate supervisor, Executive
Director Tamara Cotman (SRT-4), held a principals' meeting, ostensibly to discuss
teaching practices. Ms. Cotman began this meeting with a lengthy diatribe,
bashing the Governor and this investigation. Cotman discussed the "tricks" she
expected the investigators would use and warned the principals of things they
needed to watch for in the event they were interviewed. Cotman then handed out
forms with the words "Go to Hell" printed at the top. Cotman directed each
principal to write letters to anyone for whom the principals felt animosity,
including the Governor and the special investigators. She asked for volunteers to
"read aloud" their "Go to Hell" notes.
In December, APS received an anonymous complaint describing what
occurred at this meeting. (Ex. 12). The district hired a local attorney to investigate
this complaint. Ms. Hawkins was interviewed on January 25, 201 1 . Afterwards
she wrote to Veleter Mazyck, APS General Counsel, expressing her fear of
retaliation by SRT-4 Executive Director Cotman. Mazyck assured Hawkins that
steps had been taken to protect her from retribution. (Ex. 13). However, within
hours of Hawkins' interview, Cotman appeared at her school for a "site visit,"
359
which culminated in a list of "concerns and recom m endati on s . " Additional site
visits followed, all resulting in a list of alleged problems at Ms. Hawkins" school.
On February 11, 2011, Cotman demoted Hawkins from principal due to
"poor performance," and moved her back to her previous position. Ms. Hawkins
immediately called Mazyck and informed her that Cotman retaliated against her for
providing information regarding the November 17, 2010 meeting. Ultimately,
Hawkins was reinstated to the principal's position and Cotman was transferred out
of SRT-4 pending further investigation, but not until the matter was reported in the
local media.
Ms. Cotman spoke with us concerning this matter. She said that the
November 1 7, 20 1 0, meeting was an ordinary principals* meeting and the "Go to
Hell" memo was intended as a "stress relief tool." Cotman says she routinely
began principals" meetings in this manner. Cotman claimed that at the time Ms.
Hawkins was demoted, she did not know that Hawkins had been interviewed as
part of that investigation. Cotman says she began the process to demote Ms.
Hawkins back in October 20 10, and had been accumulating the appropriate
documentation to take that action. The "site visits"" in January and February 201 1,
comprised the final steps in the removal process.
Other attendees at the November 1 7th meeting supported Ms. Hawkins"
version of the story. At the very least, the timing of Ms. Hawkins" mid-school year
360
"removal" was highly suspicious, coming so soon after she provided information
unfavorable to Ms. Cotman.
Michael Milstead
Michael Milstead was the principal at Harper Archer Middle School from
2006 until 2009. He noticed a discrepancy between students' high CRCT scores in
elementary school and their poor academic performance. Many of these students
were several grade levels behind academically, and Milstead soon suspected that
some of these students had inflated CRCT scores.
This achievement gap was such a problem that Mr. Milstead raised it in a
May 2008 meeting and suggested that elementary and middle school principals
should work together to resolve the problem. Executive Director Tamara Cotman
later confronted Milstead about his comments. She told him that some of the
principals were very upset about his statements with regard to the CRCT scores.
Cotman berated Milstead for speaking out about these matters at the meeting.
(We have heard the same concerns from scores of teachers regarding
students" achievement not matching their high CRCT scores from prior years.)
After Cotman informed him that his services would no longer be needed in
the district, Michael Milstead resigned.
Former High-Level Official
On January 1 5, 2010, an attorney for a former high-ranking district official
sent a letter to Dr. Hall alleging that APS retaliated against this official when the
361
official objected to unethical conduct by Chief Human Resources Officer Millicent
Few. Specifically, this letter asserted that Ms. Few improperly ordered the
destruction of all versions of an investigative report done by attorney Penn Payne
with regard to allegations of cheating during the administration of the summer
2008 CRCT at Deerwood Academy.
When the official objected to destroying these documents, this official
believed he/she became the subject of a sham investigation based on a trumped-up
complaint by a former employee whom APS had ordered the official to terminate.
Although APS denied retaliating against this official, the district paid over $30,000
to settle the claim and $5,000 in attorney's fees. The charges in the letter are
consistent with evidence we have obtained through other sources.
While we have not independently investigated these charges, the timing of
this official's termination is highly suspect, and provides validity to her claims.
Even more suspicious is that APS investigated the allegations made against the
official by a former employee, but never investigated the allegations in the January
15, 2010 letter, that Millicent Few ordered the destruction of documents related to
cheating.
Patrick Crawford
Patrick Crawford worked for APS from 1 99 1 until June 30, 20 1 0, when he
was fired. He was a fixed assets accountant and one of his duties was to conduct
362
internal audits. He visited schools to perforin spot checks for property that APS
owned.
Prior to 2008, the threshold for reporting and tracking equipment was $250,
including computers regardless of value. In 2008, APS changed that threshold
from $250 to $5,000. As a result, 1 29,000 pieces of equipment no longer had to be
accounted for, most of which were computers and flat screen televisions.
On April 22, 2010, Mr. Crawford submitted a report detailing 24 million
dollars in fixed assets that were missing. That report also explained that APS had
increased its threshold for reporting and tracking equipment to $5,000. On May 3,
20 1 0, Dr. Hall acknowledged receiving Mr. Crawford's report but disagreed with
his conclusion. Four days later, Mr. Crawford, and the other two co-authors of the
report, were placed on administrative leave and ultimately terminated. Crawford
was told that his position was eliminated due to "budget constraints." He believed
these terminations were a result of the report he submitted.
Santhia Curtis
Ms. Santhia Curtis served as Deputy General Counsel for APS from 2007
until April 22, 201 1, when she was dismissed. Ms. Curtis supervised some of the
legal staff at APS and never received negative evaluations or disciplinary actions
regarding her job performance. She has an excellent reputation in the legal
community. However, in the months leading up to her termination, Ms. Curtis
363
engaged in two protected activities that she believes led General Counsel Veleter
Mazyck, and others, to retaliate against her. (Ex. 14).
In October 20 1 0, a member of the legal staff said that he had been
discriminated against by the APS General Counsel. Ms. Curtis, as this employee's
direct supervisor, reported these concerns to the Director of Human Resources.
Because Ms. Mazyck was Ms. Curtis' immediate supervisor, Ms. Curtis also
notified Mazyck of the complaint. Ms. Mazyck showed obvious displeasure and
informed Ms. Curtis that it was inappropriate for her to have reported the
allegations to the Director of Human Resources.
An investigation into the discrimination complaint was completed in late
January or early February, 2011. Contrary to APS investigative policies, however,
no written report was issued. The internal investigator was told to report his
findings back to the district through an oral report only. The file was closed on the
investigation on April 15, 201 1 . One week later, APS fired Ms. Curtis.
Veleter Mazyck met with us on May 1 8, 2011. During that interview, she
stated that Ms. Curtis was terminated because APS was "eliminating the Deputy
General Counsel position for budget considerations." However, Chuck Burbridge,
APS' Chief Financial Officer, and the person with the greatest knowledge of the
APS budget, said that he had "no idea" why Ms. Curtis had been terminated. He
made no mention of budgetary concerns or her position having been eliminated.
364
TEACHERS
The events discussed above are not isolated. Throughout this investigation
numerous teachers told us they raised concerns about cheating and other
misconduct to their principal or SRT executive director only to end up disciplined
or terminated.
In sum, a culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation permeated the APS
system from the highest ranks down. Cheating was allowed to proliferate until, in
the words of one former APS principal, "it became intertwined in Atlanta Public
Schools ... a part of what the culture is all about."
ETHICS
Teachers and principals denied receiving any ethics training. Dr. Hall failed
to balance the data-driven environment she created with an equal focus on the
importance of integrity in achieving these goals. In fact, the opposite occurred.
Teachers who conducted themselves ethically, but failed to achieve required
results, were sanctioned. Those who reported unethical conduct often became a
target of retaliation, intimidation and harassment. As a result of the APS failure to
temper its drive for success with ethical guidelines, the message was: Get the
scores up by any means necessary. In Dr. Hall's words: "No exceptions and no
excuses."
365
EARLY WARNINGS
Sudden and dramatic test score gains across schools and grade levels should
have alerted Dr. Hall and her administration to investigate the cause of these shifts.
We interviewed numerous teachers, principals and upper-level administrators,
including superintendents of other districts, who reviewed the CRCT test score
gains in APS. They universally agreed that such large gains over a short period of
time should have been red flag warnings to APS administrators. As Dr. John
Fremer of Caveon Test Security recently stated: "an individual student can exceed
beyond their wildest dreams in any given year, but when a whole group shifts its
position dramatically, you have to worry." (When Test Scores Seem Too Good to
Believe. USA Today, Mar. 6, 2011).
As early as 2001, an AJC story questioned the gains posted by a number of
APS schools in the 4th grade on the 2001 CRCT. (Ex. 15). The story reported that
of the 68 APS elementary schools tested in 200 1 , almost half posted dramatic gains
of 30 or more percentage points in one or more CRCT subjects at a grade level.
Ten of those schools had gains of 40 or more percentage points. APS publicly
defended the increases, attributing the sudden gains to improved teaching strategies
and new instructional models. APS did not investigate whether cheating or other
misconduct could have been the cause of these remarkable gains.
These types of dramatic increases continued in the district over the next
decade. We reviewed the CRCT results from 2004 to 2010 for all schools
366
currently under investigation. We found incredible swings in student performance
for these years in many schools. For example:
• From 2006-2007, the percentage of students "exceeding
expectations" in English/language arts at Peyton Forest Elementary
School climbed 51 percentage points, from 28% to 79%;
• From 2004-2005, F.L. Stanton Elementary School posted a 42
percentage point gain in the number of students "exceeding"
standards in math;
• From 2005-2006, all grades at Parks Middle School posted a 30.84
percentage point increase in math;
• From 2004-2005, all grades at East Lake Elementary School posted
a 20.78 percentage point increase in math, a 20.23 percentage point
increase in English/language arts, a 16.82 percentage point increase
in reading;
• From 2006-2007, Dunbar Elementary School posted a 20 percentage
point gain in reading. By 2009, 88.26% were passing;
• From 2006-2007, C.W. Hill Elementary School posted a 16
percentage point increase in reading;
• From 2007-2008, Ben teen Elementary School posted a 16
percentage point increase in reading;
• From 2005-2006, Parks Middle School increased the percentage of
students "exceeding expectations" in math by 2 1 percentage points;
• From 2006-2007, Parks Middle School increased the number of
students exceeding in English/language arts by 16 percentage points,
followed by an additional gain of 19% the next year;
• From 2007-2008, Parks Middle School increased its percentage of
students "exceeding expectations" in reading by 22 percentage
points;
• From 2007-2008, East Lake Elementary School increased the
percentage of children "exceeding expectations" in English/language
arts by 22 percentage points and in reading by 26 percentage points.
367
The following year. East Lakes" percentage of students "exceeding
expectations" in math increased again by 1 7.86 percentage points;
and
• From 2007-2008, Benteen Elementary School increased its
percentage of students "exceeding expectations" on the CRCT by 18
percentage points.
Throughout our investigation, numerous teachers, principals and former
officials told us that gains such as these over a short period of time raised questions
as to whether the test scores were genuine or achieved by cheating. Yet APS
leadership never questioned or investigated these extraordinary increases to ensure
that they were honestly achieved.
ALLEGATIONS OF COVER-UP
Dr. Hall and her senior cabinet received numerous reports of cheating. We
found cheating allegations being made to top leadership in the district beginning as
early as 2005, and continuing through this investigation. In many instances, those
reports were ignored, superficially investigated, or hidden from view.
Parks Middle School
APS received three complaints of cheating and other improprieties
concerning Parks Middle School and Principal Christopher Waller at the end of
2005 and the beginning of 2006. Dr. Hall personally received the first complaint
on December 22, 2005 from the Atlanta Federation of Teachers, and forwarded
this complaint to Dr. Augustine and Millicent Few. (Ex. 16).
368
On January 13, 2006, Dr. Hall received a second complaint which was an
anonymous letter. (Ex. 1 7). This letter alleged that Christopher Waller was
manipulating the Supplemental Education Services after-school tutoring program
(SES), which provided free services to certain students, paid for with federal
money. The letter also described attempts by Principal Waller to "[p]ersuade,
intimidate and coerce teachers to cheat on the upcoming spring 2006 G.C.R.C.T."
The third complaint letter alleged that Waller gave the eighth grade teachers
a document entitled "Tips for Passing the 8th Grade Writing Test." (Ex. 18). The
eighth grade students were allegedly given the "tips" and told to focus on question
number seven, which was similar to the official question on the writing test.
Question number seven on the "tips" asked students to think of a "rule" they
thought was unfair, while the actual test question asked the students to think of a
"law" they thought was unfair. Teachers coached students to think about the
question in terms of a "law," the exact question they were asked to write about.
According to the complaint. Waller told his staff that elementary schools were
cheating and that unless teachers at Parks cheated the school would continue to
look bad.
Investigation at Parks
Damaris Perry m an-Garrett, the head of 01 R from June 2000 through June
2007, supervised the investigation into Parks Middle School. She hired Reginal
369
Dukes to conduct an investigation of the complaints for APS.1 Dukes conducted
interviews at the beginning of 2006, and outlined his preliminary findings in a
March memo. He wrote that the after-school tutorial program was being abused
and the "[eighth] grade writing assessment may have been compromised after
Waller persuaded, [or] coerced teachers to cheat on the test." (Ex. 19). Perry in an-
Garrett told us she remembered receiving Dukes' preliminary report, which
confirmed some of the allegations made with regard to Mr. Waller. Despite the
forewarning that cheating might occur, the district took no action to secure the
upcoming CRCT testing environment with respect to the allegations made against
Principal Christopher Waller.
On May 5, 2006, Dukes sent APS a second report that confirmed the
allegations the district had received in January 2006. (Ex. 20).
Dukes found the following:
• Three eighth grade teachers saw and received the writing tips;
• Thirteen students he spoke to were aware of the tips and told
Dukes they got them from their eighth grade language arts
teachers;
• Most students said they were directed to practice responding to
question number seven;
• Most students admitted that a very similar question was on the
actual writing test; and,
• Some students said they received the tips before Christmas,
while others said they received them a week before the test.
Dukes is a former client of Balch & Bingham LLP.
370
Dukes found:
[W]e conclude that students were coached on the topics
that were actually on the formal writing exam. The
language arts teacher most mentioned in providing this
information is no longer at the school. The investigation
did not determine how he gained access to this
information. We do also conclude that there is reason for
concern about the securing of these tests before the exam
at Parks Middle School.
Dukes made further findings that should have raised questions about
Principal Christopher Waller and his conduct. Specifically, Dukes* investigation
revealed that student attendance data and grades were manipulated, and that the
after-school tutorial services were mismanaged and money was mi sal located.
Meeting with Senior Leadership
Dukes met with top APS officials to discuss his findings on Parks Middle
School, and he recalled that Dr. Hall, Ms. Few, Ms. Perryman-Garrett and Dr.
Augustine were in attendance. Dr. Hall. Few and Augustine all denied attending
any meeting with Dukes. Dukes was positive these individuals were there, but said
that Dr. Augustine was "in and out" of the meeting. Dukes* billing records show
that he attended a meeting at APS headquarters building on May 10, 2006, and lists
Dr. Hall, Few and SR I Executive Director Michael Pitts as being there. (Ex. 21 ).
Ms. Perryman-Garrett remembered attending a meeting with Dukes
regarding his Parks Middle School investigation. She specifically recalled Ms.
Few being at this meeting and said that either Dr. Augustine or Michael Pitts, the
SRT Executive Director over Parks Middle School, would have been there also.
371
Perryman-Garrett, who described Dr. Augustine to us as the "god-mother" of APS,
said that everything had to be run past her. We have heard similar testimony about
Augustine from several witnesses and according to Perryman-Garrett, it would
have been likely for Augustine to have been at this meeting.
Perryman-Garrett did not recall Dr. Hall being at the meeting, but told us
she would not question Dukes' recollection of it. She described Dukes as
"thorough and trustworthy" and she "assigned him the tough cases."
Dukes said that during the meeting he handed a copy of his May 5, 2006
report to Dr. Hall, but she never opened the report and did not read a single page
while he was there. He explained his findings about the mishandling of the after-
school tutorial program and improper accounting for student attendance at Parks
Middle School. Dukes said Dr. Hall had a "glazed over" look as he was discussing
his report.
Dukes explained the cheating allegations and told the group that the only
way the "tip sheet" could have been prepared was for someone to open a test
booklet and see the specific subject about which the students were to write an
essay. Christopher Waller was one of only two people with access to the test
booklets.
Dr. Hall wanted to know if Dukes had "any direct proof" of cheating or
whether anyone had confessed. He responded that there were no confessions, but
that no one could explain where the writing tip came from . (Dr. Hall has stated
372
frequently that absent "any direct proof" she would not believe that cheating had
occurred. ) Dukes was instructed to continue his inquiry. He completed his
investigation on June 30, 2006. (Ex. 22).
When we interviewed Dr. Hall, she denied attending a meeting with Dukes
and said that once Christopher Waller arrived as principal, she only heard good
things about Parks Middle School. Hall said she did not recall any concerns over
how federal funds were being spent or allegations of cheating on the Eighth Grade
Writing Test. Even if she was not at the meeting. Dr. Hall said she believes that
her staff would have told her about the subjects discussed. Few and Augustine,
who also denied being at the meeting, agreed that had they attended the meeting,
they would have told Dr. Hall about the discussion.
Despite these denials, Ms. Perryman-Garrett told us that one result of the
Dukes investigation was that the company that provided after-school tutorial
services at Parks Middle School, in which Principal Christopher Waller had a
financial interest, was no longer allowed to do business with the district. This is
strong evidence that action was taken as a result of Dukes* investigation and that
APS was aware of what had happened at Parks. Dr. Kathy Augustine confirmed
knowledge of the after-school program matter at Parks Middle School, and that a
conflict actually existed and Waller was told to "stop." However, this matter is not
mentioned in the principal* s personnel file. Additionally, there is no evidence that
373
APS took any action with regard to the allegations of cheating and other
misconduct of Principal Waller.
Retaliation by Waller
Dukes believed Principal Christopher Waller was attempting to determine
the source of the complaints against him. Our investigation revealed that Tameka
Butler Grant, a teacher at Parks Middle School, submitted the last two complaints
against Waller. According to Ms. Grant, Christopher Waller told her that he was
"going to get rid" of her. And at the end of the 2006 school year, he did. Grant
was transferred to another school and ultimately terminated from the district.
Waller also "got rid" of Kelley Collins and Fabiola Aurelien. Like Grant,
Collins and Aurelien gave Dukes information supporting the allegations against
Waller. Later, Principal Waller flaunted his removal of certain employees from the
school, stating in an article published by the Annie E. Casey Foundation:
If you have folks on the team who don't think you can
win, you are in trouble . ... So we had to get some
people off the bus first. Then, we had to get the right
people on the bus.
(A copy of this article is attached to the Parks Middle School summary.)
Dramatic Gains at Parks
If the complaints of cheating on the 2006 Eighth Grade Writing Test were
not enough to raise suspicions about cheating by Christopher Waller, beginning
with the 2006 CRCT exam, Parks Middle School also had stunning increases in its
scores on the CRCT. (Ex. 23).
374
• Comparing the 2005 and 2006 CRCT, the percentage of eighth
graders passing reading increased 3 1 percentage points,
climbing from 50% in 2005 to 81% in 2006.
• In one year, the percentage of eighth graders passing in
English/language arts increased by 27 percentage points,
climbing from 54% to 81%.
• In one year, the percentage of eighth graders passing in math
increased by 62 percentage points, climbing from 24% to 86%.
• In one year, the percentage of eighth graders exceeding
expectations in math increased by 45 percentage points, from
1% to 46%.
One year gains of 3 1 , 27, 62 and 45 percentage points should have raised
suspicions for district administrators. This is particularly true since the district had
been explicitly warned that the security of the Eighth Grade Writing Test had been
breached. Dr. Hall told us that she would be suspicious of gains of this magnitude
if she had been aware of a prior testing security breach. Nonetheless, she took no
action when she learned of the implausible gains at Parks. Instead, Dr. Hall held
up Parks and Waller as shining examples of APS progress.
In an article published by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private
charitable organization that supports Parks Middle School, Dr. Hall is quoted as
saying:
When I can stand up in front of my principals and read
the list of highest-performing schools in the district, a list
that runs the gamut from schools in the highest income
areas to schools in the lowest income areas, there are no
excuses.
Dr. Hall even praised Waller's management style:
375
You have to find someone who is able to lead.... That
sounds vague, but they must be able to go in and, while
not being a dictator, get people's attention and articulate
a vision and mission in a way that people want to be on
board with it....
The "progress" reported about Parks caused money to flow into Parks
Middle School and to Waller's pocket. Gail Hayes, the executive director of the
Atlanta office of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, said that sometime after 2006,
Waller threatened to leave Parks Middle School . The Annie E. Casey Foundation,
with the knowledge of Dr. Hall and others, interceded and contributed $10,000 to
Waller, in addition to his salary. Ms. Hayes did not know about the Dukes
investigation. Even though Ms. Hayes was on the Blue Ribbon Commission, she
did not learn about the 2006 issues at Parks Middle School until our interview with
her. Dr. Hall, and her administration, kept this information from the Foundation
and Ms. Hayes.
In 2008, Parks was the only middle school in the district to make 100% of its
targets. This resulted in Principal Christopher Waller's collecting incentive
payments, and additional payments went to members of the school staff. Dr. Hall
lauded this "progress" to the Board of Education, noting that Parks Middle School
was one of three schools receiving the district's "highest honors." Waller also
received the Atlanta Family Award, resulting in several thousand dollars going to
him personally. APS continued to tout Parks Middle School as an example of the
success its reform models provided.
376
Dukes said that sometime in 2009, he was called by OIR Director Colinda
Howard's assistant, YaQuanda Williams, asking for the reports on three different
investigations he had completed because OIR could not locate the documents. In
searching for his files. Dukes discovered that APS never paid him for the work he
performed in 2006. Dukes took his copies of these reports to APS (including his
Parks Middle School investigation) and requested a meeting with Howard with
regard to his fee. The district paid Dukes in May 2009.
On May 23, 201 1, we served a subpoena on the district for all records
regarding Dukes* investigation. One day later. Chief Human Resources Officer
Millicent Few asked her assistant Nicole Lawson (now Director of OIR) to "close
out" the 2006 Parks Middle School investigation. Lawson drafted a "note to the
file," which closed the investigation, without either Lawson or Few reading the
Dukes report. (Ex. 24). Lawson" s note made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
This was one day after our subpoena, and five years after the district received
Dukes" report.
In sum:
• Dr. Hall, Dr. Augustine and Ms. Few all received complaints
about cheating at Parks in 2006;
• An investigation was started;
• The investigator, Reginal Dukes, wrote three reports of his
findings, which confirmed the allegations;
• APS did nothing about Parks Middle School for three years;
377
• In 2009, these reports could not be found in the district;
• In 2009, Dukes resubmitted the reports, at the district's request;
and
• In 201 1, after receiving our subpoena, APS "closed" the file.
As a result of APS' failure to act on Dukes" report:
• Christopher Waller, Parks Middle School's principal, remained
in charge;
• Waller removed those individuals he believed reported his
improper conduct to APS officials;
• Waller collected money and accolades for himself and the
district based on false test results; and
• Waller continued to orchestrate cheating on the CRCT test, at
least until he was transferred to APS headquarters in 2009 as a
result of the BRC report.
Deerwood Academy
In 2008, there were questions about 1 1 Deerwood Academy students* CRCT
scores from the summer retest. Five schools sent students to Deerwood to retake
the CRCT. When the scores were reported, the 1 1 Deerwood students* scores
stood out as being statistically improbable. GOSA commissioned an erasure
analysis, which revealed that those 1 1 students also had high WTR erasures.
GOSA conducted its own preliminary investigation into the cause of the erasures,
ultimately determining that the data collected overwhelmingly showed that
someone changed the students" answers on the Fifth Grade Math Test at
Deerwood. GOSA issued a preliminary report on this investigation in June 2009.
378
The district hired attorney Perm Payne to conduct an investigation. She
concluded that no cheating had occurred at Deerwood Academy. However, APS
had her make many changes to her report, which placed the district in a more
favorable light. On July 2, 2009, while her investigation into the 2008 CRCT
retest at Deerwood was still ongoing, Ms. Payne met with Dr. Kathy Augustine,
Director of RPA Lester McK.ee, and Director of OIR Colinda Howard. There are
differing accounts of the meeting. According to Ms. Payne, Dr. Augustine asked
for this meeting in order to be briefed on the Deerwood matter. Kathy Augustine
told us that Ms. Payne wanted to interview her, and at the end of the interview, she
asked that Payne give her a brief overview of the Deerwood investigation.
However, according to Ms. Payne, she neither asked to meet with Dr. Augustine,
nor did she interview her at any time during the Deerwood investigation.
When Payne and Colinda Howard arrived at the meeting, Lester McKee was
present. Payne gave them an overview of the status of the investigation. Mr.
McKee and Dr. Augustine presented Payne with a draft letter to GOSA Executive
Director Kathleen Mathers, for the purpose of reporting on the Deerw ood matter to
the State. This document falsely claimed that Payne's investigation had been
completed, and that no evidence of cheating had been found.
Payne took a quick look at the draft and immediately told Dr. Augustine,
McKee and Howard that the letter was not correct, as her investigation was not
complete. Ms. Payne had not yet reached a conclusion as to what had transpired at
379
Deerwood. In fact, she was still attempting to interview key witnesses. Payne said
that she would review the letter more closely that evening and then email her
comments to both McK.ee and Augustine. Augustine gave Payne her private email
address.
That evening, Payne carefully reviewed the letter and suggested changes,
specifically noting the parts of the letter that incorrectly stated that her
investigation was complete and that no cheating had been found. Payne then
emailed the revised version of the letter to McK.ee and Augustine. (Ex. 25). Payne
heard nothing further about the letter until later.
Unknown to Ms. Payne, on July 6, 2009, Dr. Hall signed the letter without
Ms. Payne's suggested changes. (Ex. 26). it was not until a year later, in 20 1 0,
when Payne began preparing to testify at a PSC hearing related to Deerwood
Academy, that she saw a copy of Dr. Hall's July 6, 2009, letter. Payne's response
upon reading the letter: "Oh Shit." She realized that, in spite of her verbal and
written warnings to McK.ee and Augustine that the investigation was not complete,
they had allowed the false and misleading letter to be sent to Kathleen Mathers,
executive director of GOSA.
Contrary to what Payne told both McKee and Augustine at the meeting, and
in her later email. Hall's letter to GOSA claimed that, "the portion of that
investigation focusing on the "cheating charge* is completed and concludes that
there is no evidence, no basis in fact, that someone actually altered students*
380
answers." This was a false statement, and both McK.ee and Augustine knew it. It
became crucial for Dr. Hall, and her top leadership, that Payne's findings match
the results that Dr. Hall had falsely reported in her letter to GOSA.
Payne did not submit her report to the district until nine days later on July
15, 2009. At the time Payne submitted this report, she believed it to be the "final"
report. However, that evening, she received an email from Col in da Howard asking
Payne to make specific revisions to the document. Payne made the revisions, as
requested, and resubmitted the report. Again. Ms. Payne believed it to be her final
report. But that was not the case.
School officials kept asking Ms. Payne for more changes and additions to
the report. Ms. Payne revised her report at least three more times before APS
ultimately accepted it as "final" on August 20, 2009.
Once Payne's initial Deerwood Academy report of July 15, 2009 was
submitted to APS General Counsel, Veleter Mazyck became more involved in the
Deerwood matter, according to a confidential informant. The informant says that
as Ms. Mazyck *s involvement increased, the involvement of OIR decreased, and
Ms. Mazyck took control over the final report. The week that the Penn Payne
report was finally released, Ms. Mazyck told our informant that she had "spent all
weekend working on the Penn Payne report."
The confidential informant, who worked closely with OIR and was in a
position to know the events of that time, has provided information on a number of
381
matters which we have verified through other sources. This informant told us that
once the final Deerwood report was accepted by APS, it was considerably
"watered down" from Payne's original version. Chief Human Resources Officer
Millicent Few illegally ordered all other versions from Payne be destroyed, except
for the final version, dated August 20, 2009.
We received several editions of Payne's report from the district. However,
many of the earlier versions were missing, which is consistent with what the
informant told us. When we first interviewed Ms. Payne on February 22, 201 1.
she was subpoenaed to produce all of her records on the Deerwood investigation.
But when interviewed again on June 10, 201 1 , she provided additional documents
that she had discovered the day before on her computer. Among these records
were other versions of her report and various communications with APS. These
versions had not been produced to us by the district, even though we had requested
(via subpoena) all such records.
We find that the information provided by our confidential informant is
correct and that Chief Human Resources Officer Millicent Few illegally ordered
the destruction of prior versions of Perm. Payne's report. We also believe that Dr.
Augustine knowingly allowed Dr. Hall to sign a letter to GOSA regarding the
Deerwood investigation that was false, with intent to mislead the state as to the
status of that case. Moreover, the district's repeated requests for revisions of
382
Payne's report were an interference with, and manipulation of, what was to be an
independent investigation.
Alteration and Destruction of Documents
The Parks and Deerwood investigations were not the last time the district
would try to hide, minimize or keep secret, evidence of cheating. According to a
confidential informant in 2009, when the AJC requested OIR complaints related to
testing misconduct, APS Chief Human Resources Officer Milliccnt Few instructed
OIR personnel to destroy documents, while illegally withholding other records
from production.
In the spring of 2009, an AJC reporter submitted an open records act request
to APS for "all OIR complaints involving testing misconduct" in APS for the 06-
07, 07-08, and 08-09 school years. (Ex. 27). These complaints were maintained
on a computer log kept by OIR to indicate open investigations, including those
regarding testing misconduct. OIR personnel reviewed that log to identify files
that alleged testing misconduct and ordered that the responsive documents be
retrieved. When OIR gathered the files, some of the documents listed on the log
were missing.
Although OIR has its own director and staff, it is directly under the control
of Millicent Few. When Ms. Few learned that certain OIR files were missing, she
directed OIR personnel to create a separate list of files from the computer log, and
383
to omit those files that could not be found. The original log was directly
responsive to the AJC's records request and was illegally withheld.
Ms. Few reviewed the various OIR files that had been assembled and
according to an informant, decided not to produce a number of them. Ms. Few
ordered that those files also be omitted from the incorrect list being prepared for
production to the AJC. According to an informant, strong disagreement was
voiced with Ms. Few regarding this matter and she was told: "We can't do that.
Under the open records act this is not proper," and "this will not work." In spite of
those concerns. Few issued her directive: "this is what 1 want and this is what you
are going to do." Ms. Few illegally ordered the old case log destroyed. An OIR
secretary prepared the revised list, which was provided to the AJC in response to
the open records act request in May 2009. (Ex. 28).
When the AJC received the district's response, the reporter reviewed the
files and found the list to be incomplete. The reporter knew certain complaints had
been omitted from the APS list because of information she had obtained from other
sources. The AJC raised questions with the district regarding the missing files and
specifically asked that the records be provided. Production of the files took several
months and the reporter began to raise more questions. By late August 2009, the
reporter noted in an email communication to APS: "I am also growing more
concerned that I have not received all testing misconduct complaints that should
384
have been provided under state law." (Ex. 29). APS finally produced the files
with the exception of several documents that allegedly could not be found.
During our investigation, Ms. Few denied altering or destroying documents,
or ordering anyone to do so. However, we verified the information provided by
the confidential informant through several sources. According to the informant,
APS improperly withheld these documents because the files made the district "look
bad" since APS "either did a poor job in investigating the matter or gave a very
minimal sanction for the wrongdoing."
Porter and Reeves Reports
In the fall of 2009, more allegations of cheating at some schools at APS
emerged. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article that raised
questions about extraordinary gains in CRCT scores at some APS schools. (Ex.
30). Specifically, the AJC hired a statistician to study third, fourth and fifth grade
scores on reading, English/language arts and math. The article said ten schools in
the district posted what the AJC determined to be improbable gains in certain
grades and subject areas and suggested that cheating could be one explanation for
the jumps in scores in these schools.
The results were reported by the AJC in terms of raw test scores, not
percentages. Some of these questionable results included:
• In 2008, Peyton Forest's third grade math results were among
the lowest in the state. However, as fourth graders in 2009,
385
these same students had the fourth highest math scores, out of
nearly 1,200 elementary schools statewide;
• In 2008, West Manor's fourth grade math scores ranked 830th.
Yet in 2009, West Manor achieved the highest scores in the
state. West Manor's fourth grade average math score increased
90 points, six times the average increase;
• In 2008, Toomer Elementary fourth grade students posted the
highest English/language arts scores in the state, only to see
their scores plummet by 58 points as fifth graders in 2009.
Several experts, including Walt Haney of Boston College, told the AJC that
"[c]hanges of that magnitude are just extremely suspicious." As for Toomer
Elementary's drop in performance, Tom Haladyna, a professor emeritus at Arizona
State University, said that researchers rarely see such a steep drop. According to
experts in testing, precipitous drops in scores can be indicative of cheating on the
prior year's test. Once again, the district defended the results and relied on
alternative factors to explain them, including high student turnover rates,
instructional practices and smaller class sizes.
In a public response to the AJC's article. Dr. Hall announced that she would
be hiring two experts to look into these test scores — Dr. Douglas Reeves, an expert
on instruction and education reform, and Dr. Andrew Porter, Dean of the Graduate
School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. In a district news release.
Dr. I Iall said that both Porter and Reeves were going to inform the district in
separate reports whether the large gains or declines in student testing are the result
386
of "[f] actors not considered in recent news reports" and that both reports would be
made public. (Ex.31).
Dr. Douglas Reeves was expected to evaluate instructional practices and
strategies in the twelve schools identified by the AJC and tell APS whether those
practices could lead to the achievement reflected by the test results. Dr. Hall told
us that she thought Reeves had observed classrooms to see if there was evidence of
appropriate instructional practice. She also said she thought he worked in the
district for about two weeks.
Reeves* report clearly set out the limitations of his work, which are not
consistent with what Dr. Hall told us. (Ex. 32). In actuality. Reeves spent only
thirty to forty-five minutes in each school and did not observe any classroom
instruction during his visit, completing his assessment in just two days. Dr.
Reeves* report, based only on interviews and no classroom observations, was
positive for the district. He further said he would be surprised if scores did not
increase based on these practices. APS publicized that report and posted it on the
district's website.
A second APS expert. Dr. Andrew Porter, conducted a statistical analysis
using the same information as the AJC and produced results almost identical to the
newspaper's unfavorable analysis. Dr. Porter looked at the AJC's statistical
methodology to determine whether it was valid, and whether there were alternative
explanations for the gains reported, other than cheating. He ultimately concluded
387
that while the results of his analysis did not prove cheating, they did "point to
student achievement gains and losses that are highly unusual and for which
cheating could be one explanation." Porter presented no other explanation for the
gains.
The initial draft of Porter's report went to Dr. Hall on February 22, 2010.
(Ex. 33). Superintendent Hall, Dr. Kathy Augustine and others had a
teleconference with Porter in which they discussed his findings. Porter's final
report, dated May 11, 2010, was sent directly to Dr. Hall by email on May 18,
2010. (Ex. 34). His final report restated the conclusions he reached in his previous
drafts. Dr. Hall acknowl edged receipt of the email the next morning, and indicated
that she would read the report and get back with Porter. She never got back to
Porter, and Dr. Hall claimed she deleted this report from her computer.
Unlike the favorable Reeves' report, and contrary to Dr. Hall's stated intent,
the district did not make Porter's report available to the public. APS publicly used
Reeves" report as a defense to allegations of cheating, while Drs. Hall and
Augustine claimed not to realize the limited scope of his review.
Hall and Augustine acknowledged that Dr. Reeves could not have conducted
a true assessment of APS' instructional practices in two days, without classroom
observations and other more detailed work. Nevertheless, when Reeves* report
was received, APS released the report as support for the district's test score gains,
while making no public mention of the Porter report.
388
Media Request for Porter Report
On July 19, 20 1 0, two months after Dr. Hall received the Porter report, the
AJC sent an open records request to the district asking for "[t]he report compiled
by Andrew Porter, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of
Education, concerning CRCT results." (Ex. 35). Sharron Pitts contacted both Dr.
Kathy Augustine and Dr. Hall regarding this request. Pitts was told by them that
they did not have the report. (Ex. 36).
A district official responded to the AJC saying "[a] copy of the Porter report
does not exist in the district ." (Ex. 37). Shortly thereafter, the district told the AJC
that the requested information was in the possession of AEF: "[t]he Porter report
is included in the Blue Ribbon Commission's investigative materials, so it will not
be released until the report is released on August 2nd." The AJC did not challenge
the APS response at that time, but the Porter report was not released or mentioned
in the BRC findings.
On November 19, 20 i 0, the AJC filed a complaint with the State Attorney
General, regarding APS' failure to provide Porter's report pursuant to a records
request. On December 6, 2010, the AJC sent another request asking APS to
provide copies of all materials that the district had provided to us. (Ex. 38).
Deputy Superintendent Kathy Augustine claimed that while searching for records
responsive to the AJC's December request — five months after the AJC asked for
389
Porter's report — she discovered an "unopened emai 1 in the archives" of her
computer containing a copy of Porter's second draft. (Ex. 39).
After we met with Dr. Hall in May 20 1 1, her lawyers wrote to provide
clarification on the issues surrounding Porter's report. (Ex. 40). Her legal team
attempted to separate Dr. Hall from the report and asserted that there was no
legitimate basis upon which to conclude that she acted improperly.
To be clear, however, it was Dr. Hall who decided to use the services of Dr.
Porter to evaluate the AJC's work, held him out as the expert, participated in a
telephone conference regarding his study, proclaimed his report would be made
public, received a copy of his report, deleted it from her computer, and allowed
APS to falsely claim that a copy of the report was not in the district. There is
sufficient evidence that both Hall and Augustine did not properly maintain this
public document and illegally withheld its release.
APS REACTION TO GQSA
As with previous responses of APS to cheating allegations, the district's first
reaction to the 2009 GOSA erasure analysis was to try and explain it away. The
day after Kathleen Mathers, Executive Director of GOSA, met with Dr. Beverly
Hall and other top APS officials regarding the GOSA erasure analysis. Governor
Perdue called Dr. Hall. The Governor told Dr. Hall that he was comfortable with
the GOSA analysis and that APS should not question the state study. He further
said that "the time for data analysis [was] over and an investigation should begin."
390
Dr. Hall agreed, but told Governor Perdue that APS already determined some
classrooms were flagged based on disabled students" tests. But at the time Dr. Hall
made this declaration, GOSA had not yet given Dr. Hall, or APS, the student-level
information from which Hall could have drawn such a conclusion.
Following this meeting with GOSA, APS generated its own analysis,
purportedly to help them better understand the GOSA erasure data. Dr. Kathy
Augustine directed Dr. Cari Ryan, a senior research associate with the APS
Research, Planning and Accountability unit (RPA), to analyze the GOSA statistics.
Dr. Ryan worked with Dr. Augustine and Lester McK.ee to create a chart that
compared the 2008 CRCT scores to the 2009 scores. (Ex. 41).
The APS assessment, as reflected in its chart, was not an analysis of the
GOSA data, but an effort to disprove cheating. In contrast to the grade and
teacher-specific erasure analysis, the APS chart reflected the "average" number of
erasures above ten on each section of the test across an entire school . It then
compared this information with 2008 and 2009 CRCT results to show that scores
in many schools did not increase as a result of the erasures. Dr. Hall, Dr.
Augustine, Jeffrey Schiller (an outside consultant), and others told us that they
believed this chart showed cheating was not widespread. However, they
acknowledged to us that if there was cheating in 2008, then the APS analysis
meant nothing.
391
Shortly after Governor Perdue ordered APS to conduct an investigation, Dr.
Hall called a meeting with the principals of the flagged schools and presented
APS's internal chart. Remarkably, Dr. Hall and Dr. Augustine never showed the
principals the teacher-specific GOSA erasure analysis. Instead, they offered their
own interpretation of GOSA's data. In fact, no principal or SRT Executive
Director we interviewed had seen GOSA's erasure analysis until we showed it to
them.
When we questioned Dr. Hall and Dr. Augustine about their failure to share
the GOSA erasure analysis, they explained that because of the impending BRC
investigation, they did not want to taint the investigation. Yet they had no concern
about sharing the APS internal chart, which attempted to explain how the erasures
were not the result of cheating.
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
As a result of the erasure analysis, Governor Sonny Perdue ordered the 35
districts with flagged schools to conduct a qualitative investigation to determine
the cause of such a high number of WTR erasures outside the expected norm.
Thirty-three of the 35 districts performed adequate investigations, which met the
Governor's mandate. APS did not.
On February 12, 20 1 0, GOSA issued its investigative guidelines, requiring
APS to investigate all schools with more than 10% of the classrooms flagged and
report to GOSA by May 14, 2010. (Ex. 42). Within a day or two after the meeting
392
with GOSA, Dr. Hal! determined an independent commission should conduct the
investigation. The deadline was extended several times, and the report was
submitted on August 2, 2010.
The first outside entity considered by the district to assist the Governor-
ordered investigation was the American Institutes of Research ("AIR"). Dr. Gary
Phillips is a research scientist with AIR. APS unsuccessfully tried to convince
Phillips that the GOSA erasure analysis did not indicate that there was widespread
cheating on the 2009 CRCT.
On February 28, 2010, Dr. Phillips met with Dr. Hall, Augustine, McK.ee,
Schiller, APS Board Chair LaChandra Butler Burks, Bill McCargo of AEF and
Renay Blumenthal of the Atlanta Metro Chamber. Several people who were in
attendance at this meeting have told us that APS presented "chart after chart"
focusing on demographic factors and test score changes over a few years.
According to Ms. Blumenthal, Dr. Phillips challenged the APS data analysis,
stating that it would be inaccurate to look at test score gains over a short period and
learn anything. Mr. McCargo described the APS presentation as denying there was
widespread cheating. After the meeting. Dr. Hall told Dr. Phillips that testing
strategies used by APS might al so explain the high WTR erasures.
Dr. Phillips told Ms. Blumenthal that APS should audit the schools with
"[t]he highest number of erasures . . . and show a real commitment to taking the
393
state's data seriously." Phillips also said APS has "a leadership issue, not a data
issue." (Ex. 43).
On March 8, 20 1 0, the Atlanta Board of Education established the BRC and
selected its members. It was to be funded by the Atlanta Education Fund. Gary
Price was asked to be chair. BRC members volunteered their time and served pro
bono. Additionally, Board of Education Chair LaChandra Butler Burks, insisted
that she serve on the panel, even though several members of the BRC believed this
could compromise the public's perception of the independence of this body.
The BRC created a "working group" to run the investigation between
meetings. Burks and Price were the only two members serving on the initial
working group. Full time employees of AEF served as administrative support to
the BRC. Renay Blumenthal of the Atlanta Metro Chamber provided assistance as
needed.
The BRC hired Caveon Test Security to conduct a security analysis and
perform further statistical study. The BRC hired accounting firm KPMG to
conduct interviews at the 58 schools in APS that were flagged for high erasures.
Even though many of the classes in APS had standard deviations between 20
and 50, the BRC did not obtain any admissions of wrongdoing during its
investigation. Ultimately, the BRC concluded that Atlanta's written testing
practices and procedures indicated a "tight" testing environment, with some
improvements needed. They further concluded that there was no evidence of
394
centrally-coordinated cheating, but that APS should further investigate a number of
schools and certain educators and administrators.
TEST SECURITY
The BRC hired Caveon Test Security to perform a security audit on its test
procedures, to review student answer sheets, and to provide a statistical assessment
of GOSA's erasure analysis to help prioritize their investigation. Dr. John Fremer,
President of Caveon, and Dennis Maynes, its chief statistician, both worked on the
project and prioritized the schools based upon what they referred to as the "Caveon
Index."
Both Maynes and Fremer said that the "Caveon Index" is different for each
job based on what data is available to them. Caveon used different measures to
look for where the probability of cheating was "the highest." Two of the measures
Caveon used for this job were "abnormally high wrong-to-right erasures" and
"abnormally high total erasures." According to Maynes, for its WTR erasures,
Caveon set its probability calculation so it would only flag the worst five percent
of the teachers. For total erasures, Caveon set its calculations to only flag those
tests that had more than two times the median of total erasures. Before he
calculated it, Maynes expected this would flag approximately twenty- five percent
of the teachers in the fifty-eight schools.
Dennis Maynes said he used some of the GOSA erasure analysis data for his
review but chose not to use the state-wide averages and deviations. He only
395
examined WTR erasures in the 58 flagged schools in the district. By reducing his
statistical universe to this highly suspect and limited set of schools, Caveon
redefined the criteria against which a school or teacher would be flagged.
Maynes admitted that confining his statistical model to this small set of
highly suspect schools meant his statistical universe was "contaminated." Caveon
believed this was appropriate, however, because their overall methodology was to
focus on finding "the worst of the worst." Mr. Maynes further said that there was
an enormous amount of erasures in the 58 APS schools and that there was no doubt
that cheating was occurring in APS.
Because of the manner by which Caveon calculated its index, and the
contaminated statistical universe it used, many schools for which there was strong
statistical evidence of cheating were not flagged by Caveon. Nonetheless, the
twelve worst schools identified by the BRC are the same schools GOSA identified
as having the highest percentage of flagged classrooms in APS.
KPMG AND APS INTERV IEWS
The BRC hired accounting firm KPMG to handle the BRC investigative
efforts. Remarkably, APS never provided GOSA's erasure analysis to the BRC or
KPMG. Therefore, KPMG did not use this information to question teachers during
their interview process. In fact, not one teacher, principal or executive director
ever saw the GOSA erasure analysis until confronted by us. Dr. Hall's Chief of
Staff, Sharron Pitts, said that when she saw KPMG's proposed list of questions,
396
she found them to be superficial and not likely to get relevant information.
Therefore, she said, it is not surprising that no one confessed.
KPMG found evidence of a pervasive fear of retaliation for reporting
wrongdoing and pressure to meet targets. KPMG interviewers told us that a
teacher's fear of retaliation was a recurring theme. They summarized this
information in a presentation given to the BRC. They wrote:
During the interview process, a common theme emerged
that may indicate potential cultural issues to be
considered. Investigators noticed frequent expressions of
concern including but not limited to the following:
• Fear of job loss in the event of reporting violations and/or not
meeting target goals;
• Inability to trust administrators or central office;
• Being unduly pressured to meet test score requirements.
(Ex. 44). Chuck Riepenhoff, who supervised this work for KPMG, said this
information was discussed during BRC executive sessions.
BRC Chair Gary Price told us that APS did not have adequate controls to
"keep people from crossing ethical lines." In his view, APS did not have things in
place, such as policies and procedures, to ensure ethical conduct. They are "[a]ll
about perform, perform, perform . . . they just don't have that culture. They were
not in balance." He was disappointed when Dr. Hall proclaimed that the BRC
report "vindicated" APS. Price went on to say that the BRC report did not
vindicate Dr. Hall.
397
John Rice, an executive with the General Electric Company who also sat on
the BRC, agreed with Price's sentiment. He felt that APS had "lost its balance
between performance and ethics." He said there was no release valve for the
performance pressure in the system.
The BRC submitted its report to the Atlanta Board of Education on August
2, 2010. Governor Perdue found the BRC investigation into APS to be insufficient
in scope and depth. But the BRC was never likely to uncover the truth because the
scale of the problem in APS was too deep, given the limited resources available
and the time restrictions on the BRC's work. While Caveon's statistical analysis
helped prioritize the BRC's efforts, its analysis was flawed and understated the
potential for cheating in many schools. In the end, the problem was much larger
that anyone on the BRC could have imagined.
APS RESPONSE TO BRC REPORT
The BRC sent 108 certified educators" names to APS for additional
investigation. It also referred the principals at the 12 worst schools to the district
because it believed the extent of the circumstantial or statistical evidence was
sufficient to conclude at least a failure of leadership. The BRC believed there was
sufficient evidence of cheating in several other schools outside of these twelve.
The report was presented to the Board of Education on August 2, 2010. Following
the release of the BRC report. Dr. Hall proclaimed it as "vindication" of APS and
proof that no system-wide cheating occurred. Dr. Hall issued a news release the
398
same day, trusting that "[t]he media and public will focus on the main findings of
the report that there is no orchestrated cheating in Atlanta Public Schools.. . ." (Ex.
45). Dr. Hall quoted the BRC language regarding "no district-wide effort to
manipulate" the 2009 CRCT again, and concluded by stating that "[i]f we are
guilty of anything, we are guilty of demanding high standards of our students,
teachers and principals." Dr. Hall denied all responsibility for the cheating the
BRC believed existed, but she promised to "ferret out" those responsible and
impose severe consequences if necessary.
As to the 12 schools in which the BRC suspected cheating occurred, APS
transferred those 1 2 principals to other positions within APS pending further
investigation. Even though the BRC referred numerous educators back to APS for
additional investigation. Dr. Hall announced just four days later, that she would
refer these people to the PSC instead, without additional inquiry by the district.
(Ex. 46). Many of those teachers had never even been interviewed by the BRC,
much less investigated by APS.
Although Deputy General Counsel Santhia Curtis and her staff reviewed the
BRC report for evidence that would support these complaints, in large part, the
sole basis for the complaints filed by APS against the teachers was "high Caveon
index" — the statistical index used by Caveon to identify potential irregularities.
No other explanation was provided. According to Kelly Hen son. Executive
399
Director of the PSC, it could not take any action based on this inadequate
information.
We reviewed each of the PSC complaints filed, many of which were
supplemented the very day Governor Perdue appointed us as special investigators.
The vast majority of the complaints say only that a teacher has a high "Caveon
Index," although no one at APS with whom we have spoken knew what this meant.
Dr. Augustine, Millicent Few and Veleter Mazyck each acknowledged to us that
even if a teacher has high statistical evidence showing cheating in his or her
classroom, it does not mean that that teacher did anything wrong. Regardless, Dr.
Hall decided to refer these employees to the PSC, issuing a news release
publicizing her actions.
As to the teachers referenced in the BRC report. Dr. Hall made accusations
against them when it was obvious there was insufficient supporting evidence. Ms.
Mazyck, Ms. Pitts and Ms. Few acknowledged that "PR" [public relations] was a
factor in the decision. This was done to promote Dr. Hall's public image so she
would appear to be taking the allegations of misconduct seriously. These
complaints made against 108 people without further investigation by APS as
recommended by the BRC, and without sufficient cause to believe they had acted
improperly, are unconscionable.
400
THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
Dr. Hall had the support of community leaders after becoming
superintendent. She courted philanthropic and business leaders rather than spend
her days in the schools, working in the "trenches" and speaking one-on-one with
teachers to know what was happening in her district.
In many ways, the community was duped by Dr. Hall. While the district had
rampant cheating, community leaders were unaware of the misconduct in the
district. She abused the trust they placed in her. Hall became a subject of
adoration and made herself the focus rather than the children. Her image became
more important than reality.
What began as a minor cheating scandal at Deerwood Academy, led to an
investigation by a then-obscure state agency, headed by a former elementary
school teacher. This was the first CRCT cheating by APS uncovered by a
governmental agency, the Governor's Office of Student Achievement. Questions
began about Dr. Hall's leadership.
When the 2009 results were published, they were startling. Governor Perdue
ordered an erasure analysis. There were concerns that the high scores were the
result of cheating.
Many of Dr. Hall's supporters defended her and the district. The possibility
of a negative reflection on the Atlanta "brand" caused some to protect Dr. Hall and
attack the messengers. Image was more important than the truth.
401
An email we obtained illustrates this belief. The email, from Senior Vice
President of the Metro Atlanta Chamber, Renay Blumenthal, stated that the BRC
final report is to be "finessed" past the Governor. (Ex. 47). This effort was
unsuccessful.
Somewhere in this process, the truth got lost, and so did the children.
FINDINGS
We found cheating in 44 of the 56 schools we examined (78.6%). There
were 38 principals of those 56 schools (67.9%) found to be responsible for, or
directly involved in, cheating.
We determined that 1 78 teachers and principals in the Atlanta Public School
System cheated. Of the 1 78, 82 confessed to this misconduct. Six principals
refused to answer our questions, and pled the Fifth Amendment, which, under civil
law is an implied admission of wrongdoing. These principals, and 32 more, either
were involved with, or should have known that, there was test cheating in their
schools.
We empathize with those educators who felt they were pressured to cheat,
and commend those who were willing to tell us the truth regarding their
misconduct. However, this report is not meant to excuse their ethical failings, or
exonerate them from their wrongdoings.
The massive test score increases alone, on the CRCT beginning in 2001,
were enough to trigger an inquiry by Dr. Hall or others to determine if the gains
402
were achieved legitimately. We interviewed experts in the education field,
including teachers, principals and superintendents, who agreed that the incredible
increases in the test scores, over a short period of time, should have drawn the
attention of Dr. Hall and her cabinet.
The standard deviations with regard to the WTR erasure analysis on the
2009 CRCT were so high as to rule out any conclusion other than cheating.
However, we stress that a high standard deviation does not always mean that a
particular teacher cheated because we know that some teachers* tests were changed
by others, without their knowledge. Additionally, during the 2009 CRCT and
previous testing years, security protocols were regularly breached with reckless
disregard for state-mandated procedures.
Amazingly, while APS was in denial, entities such as The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution, recognized these gains as extraordinary and began raising questions
as early as 2001 . The AJC questioned test score gains in APS in 2006 and 2009.
Never once did Dr. Hall, or other officials, investigate to confirm that these scores
were legitimate. While others were questioning these gains. Dr. Hall staunchly
denied that the scores were a result of cheating, attributing the gains to their
educational initiatives and prowess. To make matters worse, the district then
touted the principals at schools with the highest increase in scores, like Parks
Middle School, as models of APS and the district's achievements.
403
Publicly, the district flatly rejected any suggestion of test misconduct, but
internally, Dr. Hall and her administration received numerous reports of cheating at
a number of schools. She ignored them, hid them, or attempted to explain them
away. In 2006, an APS investigator concluded that cheating occurred on an Eighth
Grade Writing Test at Parks Middle School. Dr. Hall took no action, despite
evidence that the principal may have been involved in making students change test
answers. Instead, she ordained the principal at Parks as the poster child for how a
school can turn around. Ironically, when numerous principals and teachers were
asked during this investigation if they believed cheating occurred in APS, they
immediately pointed to Parks Middle School, and its principal.
In 2009, when the district received an open records request seeking all
complaints of cheating, certain administrators illegally altered the complaint log (a
public document) to minimize the number of complaints and hide files that would
have cast APS in a negative light. Similarly, when an expert, hired by APS
produced a report which suggested that cheating could be one explanation for large
score gains. Dr. Hall deleted that report from her computer. It was never made
public by the district.
Dr. Hall pledged "full cooperation" with this investigation, but did not
deliver. The district's responses to our subpoenas were slow and often incomplete.
APS withheld documents and information from us. Many district officials we
interviewed were not truthful.
404
On multiple occasions, APS administrators attempted to explain away
evidence of cheating. On the summer 2008 CRCT retest at Deerwood Academy,
they manipulated and softened the report of the purportedly "independent"
investigator. Likewise, when GOSA produced the 2009 erasure analysis, APS
tried to secrete that data, such that only the highest ranking district administrators
saw it.
Rather than use the GOSA analysis to aid in its investigation (through the
BRC), APS created its own internal study to explain how the high erasures were
not the result of cheating. Dr. Hall never shared the GOSA erasure analysis with
her executive directors, principals or teachers, instead showing them the APS
internal analysis. She knew this information was not shared w ith the BRC and that
they had only seen Cav eon's flawed analysis. BRC members never saw the very
document that laid the foundation for its investigation.
APS became such a "data-driven" system, with unreasonable and excessive
pressure to meet targets, that Dr. Hall and her senior cabinet lost sight of
conducting tests with integrity. This immense pressure to meet targets placed on
principals was imposed upon the classroom teachers. Meeting targets "by any
means necessary" became more important than actual student achievement.
Dr. Hall and her cabinet knew or should have known that cheating was
occurring on the CRCT. For years, they disregarded warning signs or failed to see
them. If they failed to see the warnings, they were not the leaders they claimed to
405
be. And if they disregarded t hem, it was a gross and willful breach of their duty to
the children of Atlanta.
As a result, school children were harmed by the failure to honestly measure
their academic achievements, depriving them of the educational assistance they
needed, and to which they were entitled.
Dr. Sharon Da vis- Williams
Dr. Sharon Davis- Williams, Executive Director of SRT-1, failed in her
responsibility for testing activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of,
and proper security for, the 2009 CRCT. Williams failed to properly monitor the
2009 CRCT and adequately supervise testing activities and test security in SRT-1 .
This resulted in, and she is responsible for aiding and abetting Dr. Hall in
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the evaluation of students to
the State Department of Education with regard to the results of the 2009 CRCT.
We conclude that Sharon Davis-Williams either knew or should have known
cheating and other misconduct was occurring within schools in SRT-1 .
Michael Pitts
Michael Pitts, Executive Director of SRT-2, failed in his responsibility for
testing activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper security
for, the 2009 CRCT in SRT-2. Pitts failed to properly monitor the 2009 CRCT,
and adequately supervise testing activities and test security in SRT-2. This
resulted in, and he is responsible for aiding and abetting Dr. Hall in falsifying.
406
misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the evaluation of students to the State
Department of Education with regard to the results of the 2009 CRCT.
We conclude that Michael Pitts either knew or should have known cheating
and other misconduct was occurring within schools in SRT-2.
More particularly, we conclude that Michael Pitts had knowledge of
cheating at Parks Middle School and aided and abetted cheating at this school by:
• Failing to investigate allegations of cheating and reports that
attendance records had been falsified;
• Discouraging teachers from making complaints against
Principal Christopher Waller; and
• Advising teachers at Parks Middle School not to cooperate with
this investigation.
Finally, when questioned about these allegations, Pitts provided false
information to us.
Tamara Cotman
Tamara Cotman, Executive Director of SRT-4, failed in her responsibility
for testing activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of, and proper
security for, the 2009 CRCT in SRT-4. Cotman failed to a properly monitor the
2009 CRCT, and adequately supervise testing activities and test security in SRT-4.
This resulted in, and she is responsible for aiding and abetting Dr. Hall in
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the evaluation of students to
the Georgia Department of Education with regard to the results of the 2009 CRCT.
407
We conclude that Tamara Cotman either knew or should have known
cheating and other misconduct was occurring within schools in SRT-4.
Finally, when questioned about these matters and the "Go to Hell" meeting,
she provided false information to us.
Veleter Mazyck
As General Counsel for APS, Ms. Mazyck' s conduct raised the following
concerns.
She attempted to manipulate and influence the outcome of the investigation
into potential cheating at Deerwood Academy in 2008.
When questioned about the Deerwood Academy investigation and other
matters, she provided less than candid responses.
Millicent Few
Millicent Few, Chief Human Resources Officer, on two occasions ordered
those under her supervision to illegally destroy and alter public documents in order
to hide evidence related to test cheating and misconduct.
When asked about these matters, Ms. Few made false statements.
Dr. Kathy Augustine
Dr. Kathy Augustine, Deputy Superintendent for Instruction and
Curriculum, failed in her responsibility for testing activities and for ensuring the
ethical administration of and proper security for the CRCT in 2009, as well as in
previous years. Dr. Augustine failed to properly monitor the CRCT in 2009 and in
408
previous years, and to adequately supervise testing activities and test security .
This resulted in, and she is responsible for, aiding and abetting Dr. Hall in
falsifying, misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the evaluation of students to
the State Department of Education with regard to the results of the 2009 CRCT in
the APS system.
Dr. Augustine had a legal and ethical duty not to falsify, misrepresent, omit
or erroneously report information submitted to governmental agencies. We
conclude that Dr. Augustine violated this duty by intentionally causing a letter
containing false information to be transmitted to the state. Specifically, Dr.
Augustine caused and allowed a letter to be transmitted to the state indicating that
the investigation into allegations of cheating at Deerwood Academy was complete
and that no evidence of cheating had been found.
We conclude that Dr. Augustine either knew or should have known cheating
and other misconduct was occurring in schools in the APS system.
Finally, when questioned about the Deerwood Academy investigation and
other matters, she made false statements.
Dr. Beverly Hall
Dr. Beverly Hall, Superintendent of the Atlanta Public School System, was
ultimately responsible for honestly and accurately reporting information to the
State of Georgia regarding the evaluation of students. She certified to the Georgia
Department of Education that the district "adhered to all written regulations and
409
procedures relating to testing and test administration including the distribution and
collection of test materials, test security, use of these results and department testing
dates and the reporting of irregularities" as required by the relevant guidelines and
test manuals. It is our finding from the statistical data and other evidence, that Dr.
Hall's certification to the state was false.
Dr. Hall failed in her leadership of, and ultimate responsibility for, testing
activities and for ensuring the ethical administration of the CRCT in 2009, as well
as in previous years. This resulted in, and she is responsible for, falsifying,
misrepresenting or erroneously reporting the evaluation of students to the State
Department of Education with regard to the results of the 2009 CRCT in the APS
system.
Finally, we conclude that Dr. Hall either knew or should have known
cheating and other misconduct was occurring in the APS system.
410
GLOSSARY
TERM
DEFINITION
APS
Atlanta Public Schools. An independent school system in the City
of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. Officially the "Atlanta
Independent School System."
AYP
Adequate Yearly Progress. Part of the federal No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, AYP is a measure of year-to-year student
achievement on statewide assessments. Schools, school districts,
and states must demonstrate a certain level of performance on
reading and/or language arts and mathematics assessments.
Schools that do not "meet AYP" for two consecutive years in the
same subject area are designated as schools in "Needs
Improvement."
Certified educator
Individuals trained in education who hold teaching, leadership,
service, technical specialist, or permit certification issued by the
PSC.
Classroom level data
CRCT erasure analysis data for specific teacher or homeroom,
including the subject tested, number of students, total number of
wrong to right erasures, and resulting standard deviation.
Confessed
Admitted to the truth of a charge or accusation.
Convocation
Annual celebration held by APS to recognize schools that have
met at least 70 percent of its performance targets. All APS
schools' faculty are expected to attend.
CRCT
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test. A standardized test
used by Georgia as the AYP assessment tool for elementary and
middle schools. Tests grades 1-8 in reading, English/language
arts, and math. In addition, grades 3-8 are tested in science and
social studies.
ELA
English /language arts
Fifth (5th) Amendment
The privilege against self-incrimination grounded in the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, providing that no person
will be compelled to be a witness against himself. In a criminal
case, if a defendant invokes the 5th Amendment and refuses to
testify, he may not be presumed guilty based on that refusal.
However, in a civil case, if a witness invokes the 5th Amendment
and refuses to answer questions concerning whether he or she
committed a particular act, "it creates an implied admission that a
truthful answer would tend to prove that the witness had
committed the act." Perez v. Atlanta Check Cashers, Inc., 302
Ga. App. 864, 870 (2010).
GOSA
Governor' s Office of Student Achievement. State agency which
provides accountability for Georgia's schools, pre-K through
postsecondary levels. The intent is to improve student
achievement and school completion in Georgia.
GTR M
Unique identification number assigned to each student.
411
IEP
Individualized Education Program. Free, appropriate, public
special education services which students with certain disabilities
or impairments are eligible to receive. An IEP is a written plan
developed by a team of teachers, other qualified personnel,
parents, guardians, and the student if appropriate.
Implicated
Shown to be also involved, usually in an incriminating manner.
LA
Language arts
MA
Mathematics
Makes the floor
At Convocation, schools that "make the floor" have met at least
70 percent of its targets. Those schools" faculty members are
seated in groups on the floor of the host venue, with the schools
meeting the highest percentage of its targets seated closest to the
stage. Schools that do not make the floor are seated in bleachers
or other remote seating.
Meets, exceeds
Refers to a measurement, usually expressed as a percentage, of
students who "met" or "exceeded" state standards in certain core
curriculum subjects (math, reading, English/language arts,
science, and social students) as measured by the CRCT.
Monitors
Persons assigned to a school to observe test administration
procedures; e.g. test distribution, test collection, storage of test
materials. Observes testing sites to see that schedules are being
followed, reports unusual activity.
out
APS Office of Internal Resolution/Employee Relations.
Processes and investigates complaints and reports of employee
wrongdoing and related employment matters.
Parapro/ paraprofessi onal
A person who may have less than professional-level certification,
who relates in role and function to a professional and does a
portion of the professional's job under the professional's
supervision, and whose decision-making authority is limited and
regulated by the professional. O.C.G.A. § 20-2-204. Georgia
paraprofessi onal s must be certified by the PSC.
PDP
Professional Development Plan. A plan developed and
implemented to correct perceived deficiencies in performance of
teachers and administrators, used to encourage and support
improvement in specific areas.
PEC
Program for Exceptional Children. Program offering specialized,
educational testing, evaluation and other services to eligible
children with certain disabilities or impairments. Each eligible
student must have an IEP.
Preponderance of the evidence
A standard of proof in civil cases. Evidence which is of greater
weight or more conv incing than the evidence which is offered in
opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the
fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Proctors
Persons assigned to monitor classrooms or other specific areas
during testing; circulate to observe students and discourage
misconduct; assist test examiner to maintain testing security;
report unusual activity or irregularities.
412
Prompting
Assisting students during testing by use of verbal or nonverbal
cues. Examples include voice inflection, pointing to answers,
repetition or rephrasing of words or passages, physical cues,
movements, sounds, or signals meant to suggest or convey the
answer or encourage students to erase and change an answer.
PSC
Georgia Professional Standards Commission. A state agency
created "to set and apply high standards for the preparation,
certification, and continued licensing of Georgia public
educators." The PSC also handles the investigation and due
process of cases referred for disciplinary action.
RD
Reading
RPA
APS' Department of Research, Planning and Accountability.
Among other functions, RPA manages and oversees all testing
programs at APS.
Social promotion
The practice of promoting a student from one grade level to the
next on the basis of age rather than academic achievement.
SRTs
School Reform Teams APS is organized into four (4)
geographically aligned areas comprised of elementary and middle
schools, each headed by an executive director. The structure is
meant to provide greater accountability and faster service to
schools and parents.
Standard deviation
A measure of the variability or di spersion of a distribution of
scores that represents the average difference between individual
scores and the mean. The more the scores cluster around the
mean, the smaller the standard deviation.
Student level data
CRCT erasure analysis data for each individual student for each
subject tested (RD, ELA, MA) showing the total number of
erasures made on that test, and the number of those erasures that
changed from wrong to right.
Stray marks
Pencil markings made on answer sheets that are visible outside of
the "bubble" or oval area where answer choices are to be marked.
Targets
An accountability program implemented by APS, consisting of
specific performance goals set for each school at the beginning of
the school year. The targets are based on quantifiable measures,
primarily CRCT test scores, and also include factors such as
student attendance, and enrollment in rigorous academic courses.
Testing accommodation
A change in a test administration that modifies how a student
takes or responds to the assessment. Accommodations are
designed to provide equity and serve to level the playing field for
students with disabilities and English Language Learners.
Totality of the evidence
Finding or conclusion based on all of the circumstances of a
particular case, rather than any one factor.
WTR
Wrong To Right = an incorrect answer choice is erased and
changed to a correct answer choice on an answer sheet, as
detected by erasure analysis using high speed optical scanners.
413
Page 1
LexisNexis
2 of 11 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The At lanta Joumal-Constiaition
ajc.com
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
August 31. 2010 Tuesday
Main Edition
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 1 1 A
LENGTH: 603 words
HEADLINE: APS test analysis was fair, rigorous
BYLINE: John Fremer: For the AJC
BODY:
As students return to school this fall, Gov. Sonny Perdue and the Governor's Office of Student Achievement, or
GOSA, continue to criticize the work of my company, Caveon Test Security. The governor's position is misguided with
respect to Caveon, but he is calling attention to an ugly reality: Wholesale, organized cheating in some Atlanta public
schools occurred and must be addressed. His statements about Caveon, though, do not rest on well-established and
scientific cheating detection methods.
The governor's public statements about our analyses of 2009 statewide Criterion Referenced Competency Tests, or
CRCT, data ignore that we confirmed GOSA's conclusion that cheating occurred at some APS schools. Caveon is the
leading test security company in the field, with experience examining more than 15 million test instances for the largest,
most esteemed test organizations in the world, including 15 state departments of education and the Department of
Defense.
The state's vendor used a "preliminary screening" method of counting wrong-to-right CRCT erasures. Caveon
would never recommend that our clients launch full-scale investigations solely on the basis of wrong-to-right erasures.
Such an approach flies in the face of industry best practices.
A key concept in our work is helping clients focus on the "worst of the worst." We also believe that minimizing
false accusations is highly desirable. This means every school and class that is investigated shows clear evidence of
serious problems.
What the governor seems unwilling to recognize is that many of the Atlanta schools flagged in the original GOSA
analysis are almost certainly on the list of "schools of concern" because of factors unrelated to cheating. These factors
414
Page 2
APS test analysis was fair, rigorous The Atlanta Journal-Constitution August 3 1, 2010 Tuesday
include common missteps such as students getting off track and making mistakes marking their answer sheets. "Losing
your place" on answer sheets occurs on a fairly common basis. The CRCT is no exception, and when a student reahzes
a miscue, erases the misaligned marks and corrects the answer sheet, wrong-to-right erasures are created.
No credible measurement expert would be satisfied with the original GOSA analyses as a basis for deciding that a
teacher or school had serious problems unless the results were very extreme, as was the case with some of the schools
flagged by GOSA and confirmed by Caveon's in-depth follow-up.
To the detriment of our ability to analyze tests to the fullest extent possible, the GOSA provided data only for the
58 schools that had been designated as being "of concern," not all APS schools. Most importantly, we did not receive
student-by-student response data for every question. This omission prevented us from conducting these other cheating
analyses:
Collusion: Which schools and classes had "unusual agreement" among students, far beyond what could reasonably
have occurred by chance alone? This is the most basic cheating analysis, one any expert would insist on doing.
Unusual patterns: Which schools and classes had very odd patterns of student responses, such as missing easy
questions and answering hard questions? This outcome is very likely to have been caused by students receiving help
before or during an exam as well as tampering with answer sheets or student records after testing.
From Caveon's perspective, we would very much appreciate discontinuation of uninformed and wrongheaded
criticism of the state-of-the-art cheating analyses that we did. Any contention that we jeopardized our personal and
professional reputations to please a client has no basis in fact whatsoever.
John Fremer is president and COO of Caveon Testing Security.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2010
415
Test Examiner's Manual
Grades 1 and 2
Online Shell
Reading, English/Language Arts, and Mathematics
Georgia Department of Education
Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
Copy right © 2009 by the Georgia pcparanenl of Education
Payne 03617
416
Secure Test Materials — Do Not Copy
All test booklets and supporting materials associated with the Criterion-Referenced Competency
Tests (CRCTs) are confidential and secure. No part of any test booklet may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, including but not limited to electronic, mechanical,
manual, or verbal (e.g„ photocopying, recording, paraphrasing — rewording or creating mirror
items for instruction — and/or copying). CRCT materials must remain secure at all times and
(excluding the School and System Test Coordinator's Manual, the Test Examiner's Manual for
grades 3 through 8, and the online shell for the grades 1 and 2 Test Examiner's Manuals) cannot
be viewed by any individual or entity prior to or after testing. {Test Examiner's Manuals for
grades 1 and 2 are secure.) To do so is a direct violation of testing policies and procedures
established by Georgia law (§20-2-281) and the State Board of Education (Rule 160-3-1 -.07(2)
(i)3) in addition to copyright laws and Georgia professional ethics for educators. CRCT materials
may not be provided to any persons except those conducting the test administration and those
being tested. All test booklets (used and unused) and all supporting materials must be accounted
for and returned at the completion of the test administration and in the manner prescribed in the
School and System Test Coordinator's Manual.
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
Payne 03618
417
Table of Contents
Introduction , 1
Purpose of This Manual , 1
Test Materials 2
Test Security . 2
Preparing for the Test 3
Scheduling the Test 5
Administering the CRCTs 6
Administering the Braille Version of the CRCTs 8
Administering the Large Print Version of the CRCTs 8
Completing the Student Identification Information 9
Directions for Administering the Reading CRCT *
Directions for Administering the English/Language Arts CRCT *
Directions for Administering the Mathematics CRCT *
Post-Testing Activities :. 12
Encoding Student Information 12
Completing Sections 9-14: "For Teacher Use Only" 12
Completing Sections 15 and 16: "State-Directed Use Only" 17
Completing the Group Information Sheet 18
Returning Materials to the School Test Coordinator 20
Checklist for Test Examiners , ,. 21
* Directions for administering the Georgia CRCTs are omitted from this online version.
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department cf Education
Payne 03619
418
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Copyright © 2009 by ihe Georgia Department of Education
419
Payne
Introduction
Georgia's Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCTs) are designed to measure
student acquisition of the knowledge and skills set forth in the state's Georgia
Performance Standards (GPS). Legislated by Georgia lawmakers, the Reading, English/
Language Arts, and Mathematics assessments were developed to yield information at
the student, class, school, system, and state levels. The primary purpose of (he CRCTs
is to provide a valid measure of the quality of educational services provided throughout
the state.
The Georgia CRCTs are comprehensive tests made up of multiple-choice items that map to
the GPS. Each Student Test Booklet contains all three content areas. Each content area test
is made up of two sections; each section is timed for up to 70 minutes.
Students will work through the CRCTs with the Test Examiner, using no resource
materials during testing. Students in grades 1 and 2 should mark only their answers
in the Student Test Booklets (using a No. 2 pencil), and may not otherwise write
in the booklet or use a highlighter to mark words or passages. Calculators are not
allowed during any part of the Mathematics test. Scratch paper, provided by the Test
Examiner, can be used during the Mathematics test only.
Purpose of This Manual
This Test Examiner's Manual provides procedural information as well as detailed
instructions for administering the CRCTs. It is imperative that the CRCTs be administered
according to the directions in this manual. If you have any questions, contact your School
or System Test Coordinator.
Uniform test administration is needed to ensure high-quality assessment data. To ensure
this uniformity, the Test Examiner's responsibilities are clearly outlined and detailed in
this manual. Step-by-step instructions for administering the test are designed to protect its
integrity and security and must be followed exactly. It is recommended that Test Examiners
read this manual and become thoroughly familiar with all CRCT administration
procedures before administering the tests.
Payne 03621
Grades 1-2 Online Shell 1 Test Examiner's Manual
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Depar tment of Education
420
Test Materials
In addition to this manual, you will receive all test materials from the School Test
Coordinator. The Student Test Booklets will be presorted into class packs of 20 and 5 and
must remain in their shrink-wrapped packs until they are distributed to Test Examiners.
Student Test Booklets for grades 1 and 2 are machine-scannable; therefore, it is important
that all pages remain free of stray pencil marks or loose eraser bits and that they not be
folded, clipped, stapled, banded, taped, or torn. Students in grades 1 and 2 will use one
Student Test Booklet to record their answers.
Each test consists of multiple-choice questions. Sample items are provided to acquaint
students with the correct procedures for recording answers, and directions for filling in
answers are provided in the Student Test Booklet.
NOTE: Materials are shipped to arrive a few days before your school's nine-day testing
period. Contact your School or System Test Coordinator for your scheduled test window.
Test Security
The CRCTs are secure tests. Maintaining the security of all test materials is crucial
to obtaining valid and reliable test results. Therefore, test materials must be kept in
locked storage, except during actual test administration. Access to secure materials
must be restricted to authorized individuals only (e.g., Test Examiners and the School
Test Coordinator). It is the direct responsibility of all individuals who administer the test
to follow security procedures.
Student Test Booklets and the items therein are to be used solely for test purposes and
may not be disclosed or used for any other purpose. Student Test Booklets must remain in
their shrink-wrapped packages until they are distributed to Test Examiners. Shrink-
wrapped packages may be broken only for partial-count needs or for distribution
to examinees. Student Test Booklets from opened shrink-wrapped packages must
remain individually sealed until examinees are directed to break the seal during test
administration.
The CRCTs must be administered by a certified educator. All three content area tests
for grades 1 and 2 are read aloud to students by the Test Examiner. Test Examiners must
follow all directions and read the scripts for all test items word for word as they
appear in the Test Examiner's Manual For information on Accommodations, see
pages 12-16 in this manual.
During test sessions, Test Examiners are direcdy responsible for the security of the
tests and must account for all test materials at all times. When the materials are not in
use, they must be kept in locked storage. At the conclusion of each day's test session^
Test Examiners must return all used and unused test materials to the School Test
Coordinator.
Test Examiner's Manual 2 Grades i-2 Online Shell
I
Copy)ight © 2009 by ihe Georgia Department of Education \
Payne 03622
421
Test Examiners must make sure that students write their names on their Student Test
Booklets on the first day of testing. Students should also write their names on their
scratch paper (for the Mathematics test) to help account for materials at the end of
each test session.
Testing conditions, especially the supervision and seating arrangements of students,
should be designed to minimize the potential for cheating. The Test Examiner must
supervise the test administration at all times. All instances of test security breaches and
testing irregularities must be reported to the School Test Coordinator immediately.
If questions arise, or if any situations occur that could cause any part of the test
administration to be compromised, please have your System Test Coordinator contact
Assessment and Accountability as soon as possible at (800) 634-4106 or (404) 656-2668.
Preparing for the Test
1. Materials should be distributed to Test Examiners early on the first day of testing in
order to allow sufficient time for completion of the student identification information.
Test Examiners must apply student pre-ID labels or, in cases where there is no pre-ID
label, fill out all of the student and school information on the Student Test Booklet for
each student participating in the CRCT. Sections 1 through 7 must be completed
according to the directions in "Completing the Student Identification Information"
(see page 9).
2. This Test Examiner's Manual will be used to administer the CRCTs in Reading,
English/Language Arts, and Mathematics. Each content area test consists of multiple-
choice items. All content area tests are included in the Student Test Booklet. Students
in grades 1 and 2 will use the Student Test Booklet to record their answers.
3. One proctor for grades 1 and 2 is recommended. When more than 30 students are to
be tested in one location, the assistance of a proctor is required. Proctors may help
Test Examiners with room preparation and monitoring.
4. Before administering the CRCTs, make sure that you have the following materials:
• A copy of tills Test Examiner's Manual
• One Student Test Booklet for each student
• Pre-ID labels with precoded student information
• Two No. 2 pencils with functional erasers for each student
» Blank scratch paper for the Mathematics test (at least two sheets for each student)
• A timing device, such as a clock or watch, to keep track of time during the test
administration
• A "Testing — Do Not Disturb" sign to post on the classroom door
Payne 03623
Grades 1-2 Online Shell 3 Test Examiner's Manual
Copyrigltt © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
422
5. Arrange test materials so that they can be distributed in an organized and efficient
manner.
6. Systems will receive pre-ID labels to pre-identify demographic information on
Student Test Booklets. Follow these instructions carefully to provide the correct
student demographic information on each Student Test Booklet:
• For enrolled students, place pre-ID labels on the front covers of the Student
Test Booklets, in the space marked "PLACE STUDENT LABEL HERE."
• Verify that the information printed on the pre-ID labels is accurate (system
name, system ID, school name, school ID, teacher name, student name,
FTE Student ID and GTID numbers). If any errors are found, do NOT
use the incorrect label. Instead, notify the School Test Coordinator, If the
information on the pre-ID label is incorrect, Test Examiners should fill in "
the student demographic information on the Student Test Booklet following *
the directions in this manual (see page 9). Any incorrect information on pre-ID
labels should be corrected in the system's student records. Do not change the
label in any way. Apply only correct pre-ID labels to the Student Test Booklets.
• Not all information included in the pre-ID label is visible. Only specified
fields may be seen on the label, as indicated above. Student demographic
information (including ethnic group, gender, and date of birth) is included in the
pre-ID label and should not be filled in on the Student Test Booklets. Student
demographic information on the pre-ID label will override any hand-filled
information for all students.
• Even with a pre-ID label, the Test Examiner will still need to complete Section 1
on the front cover for all students, as well as the "For Teacher Use Only"
section on the inside front cover, if applicable.
NOTE: Student Test Booklets are designated by a Form number, which is printed
on the front cover of each test booklet,
• If the student is new to the school/system or for any other reason does not
have a pre-ID label, follow the instructions in this manual to fill in the student
demographic information on the Student Test Booklet (see page 9). All fields
should be completed accurately (including the FTE Student ID and GTID numbers).
Test Examiners should have a complete list of FTE Student ID and GTID numbers
prior to testing.
Payne 03624
Test Examiner's Manual 4 Grades 1-2 Online Shell
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of E4tication
423
7.
Before beginning the test, make sure that each student has the following:
• One Student Test Booklet
• Two No. 2 pencils with functional erasers
• At least two sheets of blank scratch paper for the Mathematics test
8. Each student's workspace should be large enough to accommodate an open Student
Test Booklet. Workspaces should be cleared of all other materials. During testing,
students should be separated by a reasonable distance to encourage independent work
and to prevent collaboration. Posters, charts, and other instructional materials
related to the content being tested should not be displayed in the classroom or
otherwise made available to students during test administration. Take down or
cover all such material.
9. You may want to plan an activity for students who finish early. Students may
read a book or do other work if they finish early, but this activity must be unrelated
to the content being tested and students should not be permitted to open their Student
Test Booklets again.
The Reading, English/Language Arts, and Mathematics CRCTs will be administered to
students within the state testing window of April 6 through May 8, 2009. Systems will
choose one nine-day testing period within this window.
All students should be tested in surroundings that will provide them with the opportunity
to do their best work on the test. In schools where students in several classes are being
tested, each classroom of students must take the same test at the same time.
The CRCTs must be administered in the order prescribed: Reading, English/Language
Arts, and Mathematics. Each section of each test must be administered in one block
of time. Approximately halfway through the administration of each content area test
(between Sections 1 and 2), students should be given a 10-minute break. Alternatively,
students may take a lunch break between Sections 1 and 2. Both sections of a content
area test must be administered on the same day. Under no circumstances may a content
area test be split across multiple days — to do so is a direct violation of test security.
The administration time for the CRCTs, as indicated in the following table, should be
sufficient for students to complete each test section. The scripting process may increase
the administration time slightly. In such cases, testing should continue as long as students
are productively engaged in completing the test. Students should be given a few minutes
at the end of each test section to review independently any items they have not answered,
Time may be called before 70 minutes if all students have completed the respective section
Scheduling the Test
Payne 03625
Grades 1-2 Online Shell
5
Test Examiner's Manual
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of liducalion
424
CRCT Administration Schedule, Grades 1 and 2
Content Area
Taw
TVlMft? Al i nTnpn
JL Ilvllj* ALtljU 1 1 J&L)
Reading
Distribute Student lest Booklets
and read directions
Approximately 10-15 minutes
Test Administration — Section 1
Approximately 45—70 minutes
Break
(10 minutes or lunch)
Test Administration — Section 2
Approximately 45-70 minutes
Total Administration Time
Approximately 1 10— 165 minutes
English/Language Arts
Distribute Student Test Booklets
and read directions
Approximately 1.0-15 minutes
Test Administration — Section 1
' Approximately 45—70 minutes
Break
(10 minutes or lunch)
Test Administration — Section 2
Approximately 45-70 minutes
Total Administration Time
Approximately 110-165 minutes
Mathematics
Distribute Student Test Booklets
and read directions
Approximately 10-15 minutes
Test Administration — Section 1
Approximately 45-7^ minutes
Break
( 1 0 minutes or lunch)
Test Administration — Section 2
Approximately 45-70 minutes
Total Administration Time
Approximately 1 10-165 minutes
Administering the CRCTs
This Test Examiner's Manual should be used to administer the Reading, English/
Language Arts, and Mathematics CRCTs. Before you administer the CRCTs, make
sure you have extra No. 2 pencils available and that students' desks are cleared of all
other materials.
Test Examiners must make sure that students write their names on their Student Test
Booklets on the first day of testing. Students should use the same Student Test Booklet
on all subsequent days of testing,
Because the printed Test Examiner's Manuals for grades 1 and 2 contain secure test items,
they must be treated in a secure manner and returned to the School Test Coordinator
at the conclusion of each test session with all other test materials. Test items must be
read exactly as they are scripted in the printed Test Examiner's Manual. Under no
circumstances may Test Examiners deviate, in any way, from the script — to do so is
a direct violation of test security. Test items should be read at a normal pace and in a
normal tone of voice.
f
Payne 03626
Test Examiner's Manual 6 Grades 1-2 Online Shell
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
425
Some students may not be familiar with how to fill in answers. To familiarize students
with the correct procedure, sample items are provided at the beginning of each content
area test. During each test session, circulate around the room and check to see that
students are recording their answers in the correct section of their Student Test Booklets.
This process will be referred to on subsequent pages as "circulate and check."
Students in grades 1 and 2 should mark only their answers in the Student Test
Booklets (using a No. 2 pencil), and may not otherwise write in the booklet or use a
highlighter to mark words or passages.
All content area tests for grades 1 and 2 must be read aloud to students. All information to be
read to students has been scripted for Test Examiners and must be read exactly as it
appears in the printed Test Examiner's Manual. Any graphics (such as tables, pictures, or
charts) associated with items should not be described to students. Use your professional
judgment in responding to student questions that arise during the testing session. You may
clarify directions; however, under no circumstances should you reword test items,
suggest answers, or evaluate student work during the testing session. You may repeat
(verbatim) a test item one time after your initial reading, but each test item may be read no
more than two times.
Test Examiners are cautioned that voice inflection can clue students in to the correct
response or make other answer choices more confusing. Questions and response options
should be read in such a manner as to minimize the impact of inflection, word emphasis,
or reading style. If necessary, take time before die administration to practice reading
appropriately.
Read word for word all text that is boxed and printed in boldface type and preceded by
the word Say. Text that appears in regular type or italics should not be read aloud to the
students.
For the Mathematics test, students should be given at least two sheets of blank scratch
paper. Students must print their names in the upper right-hand corner of each sheet of
scratch paper they receive. Students may ask for more scratch paper during the test
administration, if necessary, All scratch paper must be accounted for and returned to the
School or System Test Coordinator with the other test materials. Unless specified by a
student's EEP, calculators are not allowed on the Mathematics test.
If testing is interrupted at any time during the test session (by a fire emergency or a child
becoming ill, for example), note the time the interruption begins so that you can calculate
the amount of reserved time the student(s) will need to complete the test session. If
students must leave the room during testing, be sure to lock the door to ensure the
security of the test materials. If you have any questions about an individual situation,
please contact your School or System Test Coordinator.
Payne 03627
Gradei 1-2 Online Shell 7 Test Examiner's Manual
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
426
Administering the Braille Version of the CRCTs
The directions in this manual also apply to the administration of the Braille version of the
CRCTs. Additional Braille instructions are as follows:
« Disregard references to class packs. The Braille test books will be individually
packaged.
• References to specific page numbers in the standard Form 1 Student Test Booklet
may be incorrect for the Braille version. In order to supply the correct page
numbers and other references, Test Examiners need to review — prior to testing — all
test materials that accompany the Braille test book, including the supplemental
instructions, the standard Form 1 Student Test Booklet, and the standard Form 1
Test Examiner's Manual.
• The Test Examiner must complete the student identification information for each
student on a standard Form 1 Student Test Booklet. The Test Examiner must also
print the student's name, teacher, school, and system on the front cover of the
Braille test book.
• Indicate on the inside front cover of the standard Form 1 Student Test Booklet that
the student was administered the Braille version by filling in the circle next to the
word "Braille" in Section 12.
• Because extra time may be needed for administering the Braille version, it is
recommended that students be tested individually or in a small-group setting.
• Test Examiners who administer the Braille version will use the standard Form 1
Test Examiner's Manual throughout testing.
• The Test Examiner or proctor must fill in student responses on the standard
Form 1 Student Test Booklet exactly as the student dictates. Under no .
circumstances should a student's answer be altered or edited — to do so is a direct
violation of test security.
• Keep the transcribed standard Form 1 Student Test Booklet with the other used
Student Test Booklets from the student's class. The School Test Coordinator
should return the Braille test books with the nonscorable shipment.
Administering the Large-Print Version of the CRCTs
The directions in this manual also apply to the administration of the Large-Print version
of the CRCTs. Additional Large-Print instructions are as follows:
• Disregard references to class packs. The Large-Print test books will be
individually packaged.
• The Test Examiner must complete the student identification information for each
student on a standard Form 1 Student Test Booklet. The Test Examiner must also
print the student's name, teacher, school, and system on the front cover of the
Large-Print test book, [
| Payne 03628
Test Examiner's Manual 8 Grades 1-2 Online Shell
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
427
• Indicate on the inside front cover of the standard Form 1 Student Test Booklet that
the student was administered the Large-Print version by filling in the circle next to
the words "Large-Print" in Section 12,
• Because extra time may be needed for administering the Large-Print version, it is
recommended that students be tested individually or in a small-group setting.
• Students who use a Large-Print version should record their answers directly in the
Large-Print test book by circling the letters for their selected answers, writing
their responses, or by using a similar marking system. The Test Examiner or
proctor must then transcribe student responses into the standard Form 1 Student
Test Booklet exactly as they appear in the Large-Print test book. Under no
, circumstances should a student's answer be altered or edited — to do so is a direct
.violation of test security.
• Keep the transcribed standard Form 1 Student Test Booklet with the other used
Student Test Booklets from the student's class, The School Test Coordinator
should return the Large-Print test books with the nonscorable shipment
Completing the Student Identification Information
If a student has a pre-ID label, only Section 1 will need to be completed on the front
cover of his or her Student Test Booklet prior to test administration. If a student does not
have a pre-ID label, all the student identification information will need to be completed
on the front cover of his or her Student Test Booklet prior to test administration. Please
follow the instructions below.
Section 1: Student Name, Teacher, School, System
Using a No. 2 pencil, print the student's name, the teacher's name, and the school and
system names in the spaces provided.
Section 2: Last Name, First Name, Middle Initial
In the boxes below "Last Name," print the letters of the student's last name, starting in the
first box on the left. Do not leave any spaces between the letters in the last name. If the
last name does not fit, print as many letters as you can. In the boxes below "First Name,"
print the letters of the student's first name, starting in the first box on the left. This should
be the student's full first name, not a nickname. Do not leave any spaces between the
letters in the first name. If the first name does not fit, print as many letters as you can.
In the box below "M," print the initial letter of the student's middle name, if applicable.
Complete Section 2 by completely filling in the corresponding circles under the letters that
you printed. For example, if you wrote "r," you should fill in the circle containing "R."
Payne 03629
Grades 1-2 Online Shell
9
Test Examiner's Mmuml
Copyright <3 2609 by ihn Gmrgia Department of Education
428
Section 3: Date of Birth
Fill in the circle beside the month in which the student was born. Then, print the student's
birthday and year in the appropriate boxes, and fill in the corresponding circles under
"Day" and "Year." Days under 10 should begin with "zero." For example, if the student's
birthday is on the fifth day of the month, you should print and fill in "zero-five."
Section 4: Gender
Fill in the circle next to the appropriate gender for the student.
Section 5: Racial/Ethnic Background
Fill in the circle next to the ethnic group that best describes the student. You should fill in
only one circle: Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/Non-Hispanic, Hispanic, American
Indian/ Alaskan Native, White/Non-Hispanic, or Multiracial.
Section 6: GT1D
Print the student's GTID number in the boxes, and fill in the corresponding circles under
the numbers.
NOTE: A GTID is a Georgia Testing Identifier that is used to track and maintain a
student's data within the Georgia Department of Education's data warehouse and the
local Student Information System. All PK-12 students that attend a public school in
Georgia must have a GTID. The GTID is the key identifier used in all state data
collections.
Section 7: FTE Student ID
Print the student's FTE number in the boxes, and fill in the corresponding circles under
the numbers.
NOTE: It is imperative that the student ID number printed in this section be the same as
the number that the school or system uses to report FTE-type information to the state.
Locally assigned student ID numbers should not be used if they do not correspond with
state-reported information.
Section 8: Form
Because the Form number is printed on the front cover of each Student Test Booklet,
Test Examiners for grades I and 2 do not have to fill in any information in this field. All
Student Test Booklets for a classroom or group should have the same Form number.
Sections 9-16:
Complete these sections after all content area tests have been completed.
Directions for completing these sections are found on pages 12-18 in this manual.
Payne 03630
Test Examiner's Manual 10 Grades 1-2 Online Shell
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
429
Directions for
administering the georgia crcts
are omitted from this online version
of the Test Examiner's Manual
Payne 03631
Grades 1-2 Online Shell 11
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
Test Examiner's Manual
430
Post-Testing Activities
This section describes what a Test Examiner should do after testing in all content
areas is complete. Read this information carefully and follow all directions. If you
have questions, contact your School Test Coordinator.
Encoding Student Information
Federal and state regulations require accurate coding of student demographic
information. Follow these steps to verify the coding of this information:
1 . For Student Test Booklets without a pre-ID label, verify that Sections 1 through 7
have been completed with the correct information and the appropriate circles have
been filled in for each section.
Test Examiners must ensure that each student's Student Test Booklet is correctly
identified with both his or her nine-digit state FTE Student ID number and his or her
ten-digit GTID number. No other student identification numbers may be used.
2. For Student Test Booklets with a pre-ID label, verify that Section 1 has been
completed with the correct information.
3. Use the following directions to complete the "For Teacher Use Only" section on the
inside front cover of the Student Test Booklets. Fill in the appropriate circles in
Sections 9 through 14 as applicable for each student.
After you have completed the "For Teacher Use Only" section for applicable students,
you will need to check each Student Test Booklet to make sure it is free of any stray
marks. ONLY answers filled in properly (with a No. 2 pencil) will be scored and
reported. Return the Student Test Booklets to the School Test Coordinator. Make sure
materials are slacked in the order prescribed in this manual (see page 20).
Completing Sections 9-14: "For Teacher Use Only"
It is imperative that information be filled in correctly for each student taking the CRCTs.
Federal and state regulations require complete and accurate coding of student
information for reporting purposes. Sections 9 through 14 should be left blank if they are
not applicable to the student.
Payne 03632
Test Examiner's Manual 12 Grades 1-2 Online Shell
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
431
Section 9: SRC
The information provided below will help you assign the correct State-Required Codes
(SRCs) for students who receive special education services:
• If the student receives special education services, fill in the appropriate circle(s)
next to the student's classification(s). Please refer to the student's Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) for the appropriate classification(s),
NOTE; For the student's primary classification, only one response circle should
be filled in for SRCs 1-12 or 14-15. Additional response circles for SRCs 13-14
and 16-19 may be filled in as applicable. SRCs are listed in the following table:
SRCs
01 Visual Impairments
11 Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
02 Deaf/Hard of Hearing
12 Other Health Impairments
03 Deaf/Blind
1 3 English Language Learner (ELL)
04 Specific Learning Disabilities
14 Section 504
05 Mild Intellectual Disabilities
15 Significant Development Delay (K-5 only)
06 Traumatic Brain Injury
16 Title I Reading
07 Moderate/Severe/Profound Intellectual Disabilities
17 Title I Math
08 Autism
18 Migraiu Certified
09 Orthopedic Impairments
19 English Language Learner — Monitored
10 Speech-Language Impairments
• If a Georgia Migrant Education Agency has identified the student as Migrant
Certified, fill in the appropriate circle (18). The four regional Georgia Migrant
Education Agencies have provided each system with a listing of students who are
Migrant Certified. Only certified students should be coded.
• If the student is classified under Section 504, fill in the appropriate circle (14).
A student is eligible to be coded as Section 504 if he or she has a current Individual
Accommodation Plan (IAP) on file.
• If the student is identified as an English Language Learner (ELL) according to
Board of Education Rule 160-4-5-.02, fill in the appropriate circle (13). A student
is eligible to be coded as ELL if the student's native language is not English and
he or she is eligible for English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) services in
accordance with Rule 160-4-5-.02, regardless of whether or not the student
receives ESOL services. Students who are not eligible for ESOL services (as
specified in Rule 160-4-5-.02) may not be coded as ELL. Fill in circle 19 for those
students who have exited the ESOL program but who are still being monitored.
Payne 03633
Grades 1-2 Online Shell 13 Test Examiner's Manual
Copyright © 2009 by tfte Georgia Department of Education
432
Accommodations (requires at least one SRC)
If the student was given a test administration accommodation based on his or her
Individualized Education Plan (IEP), Individual Accommodation Plan (IAP), or English
Language Learner/Testing Participation Committee (ELL/TPC) Plan, fill in the
appropriate circle in the Accommodations section. A current IEP, IAP, or ELL/TPC
Plan must be on file for each student who receives an accommodation. Only state-
approved accommodations may be used, following the guidance issued by GaDOE.
If an accommodation is included in a student's plan that is not on the approved list,
it must be reported as an irregularity, Students who are served by Student Support
Teams (SST) but do not qualify for services under IDEA or Section 504 status may not
be granted accommodations. Failure to provide appropriate accommodations or
providing accommodations to students who are not eligible is a direct violation of
state regulations, *
Accommodation Type
If the student was given a test administration accommodation based on his or her IEP,
IAP, or ELL/TPC, fill in the appropriate circle(s) under Accommodation Type to identify
it as a Setting, Presentation, Response, or Scheduling accommodation.
Conditional Administration
Conditional administrations result from the use of conditional accommodations.
Conditional accommodations are more expansive than standard accommodations, and are
intended to provide access to students with more severe disabilities or very limited
English proficiency who would not be able to access the tests without such assistance.
Only students meeting strict criteria (outlined in the 2008-2009 Student Assessment
Handbook) are eligible for conditional accommodations. Any use of conditional
accommodations must be coded. Per State Board rule, only a small number of students
should participate in conditional administrations. ELL-M students are NOT eligible for
conditional accommodations.
Definitions of Setting, Presentation, Response, and Scheduling accommodations (both
standard and conditional) are provided in the following table.
Accommodations
Students with
Disabilities: IEP
and Section 504 IAP
English Language
Learners:
ELL/TPC Plan
Setting Accommodations
Special education/ESOL classroom
Standard
Standard
Special or adapted lighting
Standard
Small group
Standard
Standard
Preferential seating
Standard
Standard
Payne 03634
Test Examiner's Manual 14 Grades 1-2 Online Shell
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
433
ACC OMMODATIONS
Stiiofnts with
Disabilities : IEP
anp Section 504 IAP
KNfiljlSH Lancwagf,
Learners:
ELL/TPC Plan
Sound field adaptations
Standard
Adaptive furniture (e.g., slant board)
Standard
Individual or study carrel
Standard
Standard
Individual administration
Standard
Standard
Test administered by certified educator familiar
to student
Standard
Presentation Accommodations
Large-Print
Standard
Siirn the directions
Stnnrlnrft
511 sn te^t niipstimis
Sign reading passages
v^uuuhi una!
(restricted to eligible
students in
grades 3-8 only)
Explain or paraphrase the directions for clarity (in
English only)
Standard
Standard
Braille
Standard
Color overlays, templates, or place markers
Standard
Standard
Use of highlighter by student
Oral reading of test questions in English only by
readfcr or assistive technology
Standard
Standard
Oral reading of reading passages in English only by
reader or assistive technology
Conditional
(restricted to eligible
students in
grades 3-8 only)
Conditional
(restricted to eligible
students in
grades 3-8 only)
Low vision aids (e.g., CCTV, magnifying equipment)
Standard
Repetition of directions (in English only)
Standard
Standard
Materials presented with contrast and tactile cues
Standard
Photograph used
Substitute manipulative
Use directions that have been marked by teacher
Audio amplification devices or noise buffer/listening
devices
Standard
Response Accommodations
Technology applications, such as Brailler, word
processor, or other communications device with all
grammar and spell-check devices disabled
Standard
Student marks answers in test booklet
Standard
Standard
Student points to answers
Standard
Standard
Verbal response in English only
Standard
Standard
Grades 1-2 Online Shell
15
Test Examiner's Manual
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
Payne 03635
434
Accommodations
Students with
Disabilities: IEP
ahmj iT>ijV- 1 i\jn jut tj\ir
English Language
Learners:
FT I ATPr !>t A m
LiLttj/ 1 IV, i*LAN
Braille writer
Standard
Basic function calculator or adapted basic calculator
Conditional
(restricted to eligible
students only)
Scribe
Standard
Adapted writing tools (e.g., pencil grips, large-
diameter pencil)
Standard
Word-to-word dictionary
Standard
Scheduling Accommodations
Frequent monitored breaks
Standard
Standard
Optimal time of day for testing
Standard
Extended time
Standard
Standard
Flexibility in the order of administration for
content areas
Standard
Extending sessions over multiple days
Section 10: First Year ELL Deferred
ELL students enrolled for the first time in a school in the United States may receive a
one-time deferment from assessments in content areas other than mathematics and
science. If the student was deferred from any CRCT content areas, fill in the appropriate
response circles in this section.
Section 11: PTNA
If the student was present for the test administration but did not attempt any items in one or
more content areas, this must be coded in the appropriate response circle under "PTNA,"
Section 12: Braille/Large-Print
If the student was tested with a Braille or Large-Print version of the CRCTs, this must be
coded in the appropriate response circle under "Braille/Large-Print."
Section 13: EIP Served
If the student has received services from the state's Early Intervention Program (EIP)
at any time during the current school year, fill in the "Yes" circle under "EIP Served"
(relevant to grades 1-5 only).
Section 14: Local Optional Coding
Systems may choose to use this section to code special program students to gauge their
performance on the CRCTs. System Test Coordinators will designate a code to be filled
Test Examiner's Manual
Copyright © 2009 by Ike Georgia Department of Education
Grades 1-2 Online Shell
Payne 03636
435
in for this section; fill in the code number starting with the first box on the left. Note that
systems will not receive any special reports based on this coding. The coding will
generate information on each system's data file for the system to extract and disaggregate
based on their requirements.
Completing Sections 15 and 16: "State-Directed Use Only"
Sections 15 and 16 should generally be filled in by the School Test Coordinator only.
Directions for filling in these sections are as follows:
Section 15: SDUA: Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic
Support (GNETS) Only
The following table is to be used by GNETS programs to report their assigned facilities
code. The two-digit code should be filled in under Section 15 for all students who are
served at a GNETS facility. This information is being collected in order to provide reports
to each center.
iSTATE-UIRECTED
Program Name
Code
Alpine Program
01
Burwell Program
02
Cedarwood Program
03
Coastal Academy
04
Coastal Georgia Comprehensive Academy
05
Mainstay
06
Dekalb-Rockdale Program
07
Elam Alexander Academy
08
Flint Area Learning Program
09
Harrell Learning Center
10
H.A.V.E.N. Academy
11
Heartland Academy
12
Horizon Academy
13
Northstar Educational and Therapeutic Services
14
North Metro Program
15
Northwest Georgia Educational Program
16
Oak Tree Program
17
GNETS of Oconee
18
Pathways Educational Program
L9
River Quest Program
20
Rutland Academy
21
Sand Hills Program
22
South Metro Program
23
Woodal! Program
24
Grades 1-2 Online Shell
17
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
Test Examiner's Manual
f
Payne 03637
436
Section 16: IR/IV/PIV
School Test Coordinators should complete this section only as directed by GaDOE.
The procedure for reporting testing irregularities to Assessment and Accountability is
described in the School and System Test Coordinator's Manual. If GaDOE determines that
an Irregularity (IR), Invalidation (IV), or Participation Invalidation (PIV) has occurred
and should be coded in Section 16, the GaDOE Program Manager will provide the proper
codes and instructions for completing this section.
For each affected content area, fill in only one bubble on the top line: IR, IV, or PIV. Then,
write in the five-digit code number provided by GaDOE and fill in the corresponding
circles.
Completing the Group Information Sheet
The Test Examiner should complete a Group Information Sheet for each classroom or group
of students.
mrrn :
f .1 ■■. i
r i tin- ^Mi!
;n ;iMj": n ; ■ i
>, . .,-.-r
tit :|
•I' ' . • i'l '.
ill. r; fWl
r. .; ,. ; ..■ ,1 I-.. •• 1 .i.i ; • .i
p; i-'it-. \ ■ if i,i -ir i t i ,f i. - ^
"""'I i.lJ i. * *"!• "-wi | .Mil; ■- "
li/iCjiiiiiiii Jii ;
> . .'I ■ ■! ..it:
I lit.- ' I
!.".:,
X-2z»;<77.: ™ i .l jri,3in M.St
Wj r itiKV.;' ■ ■,. . ;*Ti-:-r-:
SI IE*
Payne 03638
Test Examiner's Manual
18
Grades 1-2 Online Shell
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
437
It is critical to the reporting process that the Group Information Sheet be coded properly
and that it remain with the used Student Test Booklets it represents. If a blank Group
Information Sheet is used, it must be filled out in the same way as the precoded Group
Information Sheet. Test Examiners should use a No. 2 pencil. If any precoded information
is incorrect on a Group Information Sheet, the System Test Coordinator should contact
the CTB GA CRCT support team toll-free at (866) 282-2249 to order a replacement. The
directions for completing the Group Information Sheet are as follows;
Teacher Name
Print the name of the Test Examiner and fill in the corresponding circles.
School Name
Verify that the school name has been precoded.
Number Students Testing
Print the number of Student Test Booklets to be scored. This includes the transcribed
Student Test Booklets from the Braille and/or Large-Print versions of the test. The count
number should be right-justified. For example, if your classroom contains 25 students,
starting in the first box on the left you will fill in "zero," "two," and "five." Complete this
section by filling in the corresponding circles under the numbers that you have printed.
NOTE: Unused Student Test Booklets containing pre-ID labels or completed
demographic information (for students who were not administered any part of the exam)
must be marked "VOID" and returned with the nonscorable materials. Do not include
VOID Student Test Booklets in the Group Information Sheet count.
Grade
Fill in the appropriate circle.
Special Codes
For CTB use only.
ORG-TP (CTB Use)
For CTB use only.
STRUC/Element # (CTB Use)
For CTB use only.
Payne
Grades 1-2 Online Shell 19 Test Examiner's Manual
Copyright © 2009 by She Georgia Deparmsenl of Education
438
Returning Materials to the
School Test Coordinator
The Test Examiner must return all used and unused Student Test Booklets, scratch paper,
the completed Group Information Sheet, and the Test Examiner's Manual to the School
Test Coordinator.
For soiled documents, Test Examiners must transcribe answers and student demographic
information onto a new Student Test Booklet following GaDOE procedure, and then
submit the transcribed Student Test Booklet with the scorable materials.
NOTE: Once the transcription is complete, the School Test Coordinator should mark
the soiled document on the School Security Checklist as "SOILED and VOID," and
then destroy the soiled document. Soiled documents should NOT be shipped back
with scorable or nonscorable materials.
It is imperative that materials be organized and returned to the School Test Coordinator
in the following order (top to bottom);
Top of Stack
Completed Group Information Sheet
Used Student Test Booklets (do not need to be alphabetized)
Scratch paper for Mathematics CRCT
All remaining Student Test Booklets (including Braille test books,
Large-Print test books, and VOID Student Test Booklets,
but not including SOILED Student Test Booklets)
Test Examiner's Manual
Bottom of Stack
IMPORTANT NOTES: The Group Information Sheet must be completed in its entirety.
It is critical that it be placed on top of the used Student Test Booklets it represents.
Reminder
All CRCT items and responses to those items are secure material and may not be
copied, duplicated, or retained in the school after testing Is completed.
Thank you very much for your assistance
with the administration of the crcts.
Payne 03640
Text Examiner's Manual 20 Grades 1-2 Online Shell
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
439
Checklist for Test Examiners
Before Testing:
Assist the School Test Coordinator
with notifications to students and
parents about the testing program.
Read all directions for test
administration in this Test Examiner's
Manual.
Meet with the School Test
Coordinator to review the testing
schedule and procedures.
Secure No. 2 pencils and scratch paper
(at least two sheets per student for the
Mathematics test).
Secure needed information from the
School Test Coordinator to correctly
complete State-Required Codes
(SRCs) for each student.
Inventory test materials received from
School Test Coordinator, and sign out
all secure materials on the School
Security Checklist,
Arrange for an additional proctor, if
necessary,
Prepare the classroom (remove or
cover posters, etc.).
Remind students to faring something
to read.
Ensure that all Student Test Booklets
have a pre-ID label. If there is
no pre-ID label, ensure that the
student identification information in
Sections i— 7 is filled in on the Student
Test Booklet, Do not apply incorrect
labels.
^ Write the teacher, school, and system
name on the board.
During Testing:
Post a "Testing— Do Not Disturb"
sign on your classroom door,
Be sure that all students have a
comfortable and adequate workspace.
Monitor students' handling of Student
Test Booklets to keep the materials in
good condition.
Circulate and monitor all students
. during the testing session.
After Testing:
Verify that you have collected and
counted a Student Test Booklet and
scratch paper (at least two sheets for
the Mathematics test) for every
student in your classroom.
Check to see that the Student Test
Booklets are properly filled in and are
in good condition.
Complete the "For Teacher Use Only"
section in the Student Test Booklets,
as applicable. Verify that the student
demographics and school-identifying
information have been completed,
Count and return all test materials to
the School Test Coordinator at the
conclusion of every test day. Date the
School Security Checklist each day.
On the final day of testing, assemble
all the test materials according to the
instructions provided in the "Post-
Testing Activities" section of this
manual, and return them to the School
Test Coordinator.
Notify the School Test Coordinator of
the names of any students who did not
take any part of the test.
Payne 03641
Grades 1-2 Online Shell
21
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
Test Examiner's Manual
440
Test Examiner's Manual
Grades 1 and 2 Online Shell
21168-ws
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
441
Test Examiner's Manual
Grades 3 through 8
Reading, English/Language Arts,.
Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies
DEPARTMENT OF
. Georgia Department of'Ediication
Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
442
Secure Test Materials — Do Not Copy
All test booklets and supporting materials associated with the Criterion-Referenced Competency
Tests (CRCTs) are confidential and secure. No part of any test booklet may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, including but not limited to electronic, mechanical,
manual, or verbal (e,g., photocopying, recording, paraphrasing— rewording or creating mirror
items for instruction — and/or copying). CRCT materials must remain secure at all times and
(excluding the School and System Test Coordinator's Manual, the Test Examiner's Manual for
grades 3 through 8, and the online shell for the grades 1 and 2 Test Examiner's Manuals) cannot
be viewed by any individual or entity prior to or after testing. (Test Examiner's Manuals for grades .
1 and 2 are secure.) To do so is a direct violation of testing policies and procedures established
by Georgia law (§20-2-281) and the State Board of Education (Rule 1 60-3-l-.O7(2)(i)3) in
addition to copyright laws and Georgia professional ethics for educators, CRCT materials may
not be provided to any persons except those conducting the test administration and those being
tested. AH test bookIets..(used and unused) and all supporting materials musfbe accounted" for - -
and returned at the completion of the test administration and in the manner prescribed in the .: ' - ; ■
School and System Test Coordinator 'sj&amtal. . ' .
Copyright © 20D9 by the Georgia Department of Education
443
Table of Contents
Introduction, , J
Purpose of This Manual „ , , , I
Test Materials , , ,..,2
Test Security •. ., 2 -
Preparing for the Test , ; , 3
Scheduling the Test , 5
Administering the CRCTs,.,. 7
Administering the Braille Version of the CRCTs , ,' 8
Administering the Large-Print Version of the CRCTs 9
Distributing the CRCT Materials and Completing the Student
Identification Information ., . 10
Directions for Administering the Reading CRCT 14
Directions for Administering the English/! .anguage Arts CRCT 18
Directions for Administering the Mathematics CRCT , , 22
Directions for Administering the Science CRCT 28
Directions for Administering the Social Studies CRCT 32
Post-Testing Activities . , 37
Encoding Student Information , 37
Completing Sections 9-14: "For Teacher Use Only" .-. 37
Completing Sections 15 and 16: "State-Directed Use Only" , 42
Completing the Group Information Sheet :..„ , 43
Returning Materials to the School Test Coordinator 45
Checklist for Test Examiners..... 51
; ■ •-. "3"
Copyrighf © 2009 by the Gcoi-gia Dtpamtam of Education g
O
I
, „, ' CO
. ■ ■ ■ Q.
000329
444
Introduction
Georgia's Criterion-Referenced Competency Teste (CRCTs) are designed to measure
student acquisition of the knowledge and skills set forth in the state's Georgia
Performance Standards (GPS). Legislated by Georgia lawmakers, the Reading, English/
Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies assessments were developed
to yield information at the student, class, school, system, and state levels, The primary
purpose of the CRCTs is to provide a valid measure of the quality of educational services
provided throughout the state.
The Georgia CRCTs are- comprehensive tests made up of multiple-choice items that map
to the GPS. Each Student Test Booklet contains all five content areas. Each content area
test is made up of two sections; each section is timed for up to 70 minutes.
Students will work through the CRCTs independently, using no resource materials during
testing. Students in grades may write in their test booklets, but only answers
marked on Student Answer Sheets will be scored. Students should use only No. 2 pencils
when taking the CRCTs; highlighters may not be used to mark words or passages in the
Student Test Booklet, Calculators are not allowed during any part of the Mathematics test.
Scratch paper, provided by the Test Examiner, can be used during the Mathematics test only.
Purpose or This Manual
This Test Examiner's Manual provides procedural information as well as detailed
instructions for administering the CRCTs. It is imperative that the CRCTs be administered
according to the directions in this manual. If you have any questions, contact your School
or System Test Coordinator. .
Uniform test administration is needed to ensure high-quality assessment data. To ensure
this uniformity, the Test Examiner's responsibilities are clearly outlined and detailed in
this manual. •Step-by-step instructions for administering the test are designed to protect its
integrity and security and must be followed exactly. It is recommended that Test Examiners
read this manual and become thoroughly familiar with all CRCT administration procedures
before administering the tests. •
Grades 3-8 "* 1 Test Examiner's Mumml
-■' Copyright © 200? by the Oeorgki Department of Education i
445
Test Materials
In addition to this manual, you will receive all test materials from the School Test
. Coordinator. The Student Test Booklets will be presorted into class packs of 20 and 5 and
must remain in their shrink-wrapped packs until they are distributed to Test Examiners.
The Student Answer Sheets are also presorted and shrink-wrapped into class packs of 20
and 5. The Student Answer Sheets are machine-scannable; therefore, it is important that
all. pages remain free of stray pencil marks or loose eraser bits and that they not be folded,
clipped, stapled, banded, taped, or torn. Students in grades 3-8 will use one Student
Answer Sheet to record their answers. .
Each test consists of multiple-choice questions. Sample items are provided to acquaint
students with the correct procedures for recording answers, and directions for filling in
answers are provided on the cover of the Student Answer Sheet.
NOTE: Materials are shipped to arrive a few days before your school's nine-day testing
period. Contact your School or System Test Coordinator for your scheduled testing
window.
Test Security
The CRCTs are secure tests. Maintaining the security' of all test materials is crucial
to obtaining valid and reliable test results. Therefore, test materials must be kept in
locked storage, except during acUial test administration. Access to secure materials
must be restricted to authorized individuals only (e.g., Test Examiners and the School
Test Coordinator). It is the direct responsibility of all individuals who administer the
test to follow security procedures..
Student Test Booklets and the items therein are to be used solely for test purposes and
may not be disclosed or used for any other purpose. Student Test Booklets must remain in
their shrink-wrapped packages until they are distributed to Test Examiners. Shrink-wrapped
packages may be broken only for partial-count needs or for distribution to examinees.
Student Test Booklets from opened shrink-wrapped packages must remain individually '
sealed until test administration begins. •
The CRCTs must be administered by a certified educator, During test sessions, Test
Examiners are directly responsible for the security of the tests and must account for all
test materials at all rimes. When the materials are not in use, they must be kept in locked
storage, At the conclusion of each day's test session, Test Examiners must return all used
and unused test materials to the School Test Coordinator.
Students are instructed to write their names on the cover of their Student Test Booklets
on the first day of testing (and on their scratch paper for the Mathematics test) to help
account for materials at the end of each test session. Students in grades 3-8 may
underline and circle key words or work problems in their test booklets (usin g a
No, 2 pencil), but only answers marked on Student Answer Sheets will be scored,
list Examiner's Manual 2 ■ .
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
Grades 3-8
446
Testing conditions, especially the supervision and seating arrangements of students,
should be designed to minimize the potential for cheating. The Test Examiner must
supervise the test administration at all times, AH instances of test security breaches and
testing irregularities must be reported to the School Test Coordinator immediately.
If questions arise, or if any situations occur that could cause any part of the test
administration to be compromised, please have your System Test Coordinator contact
Assessment and Accountability as soon as possible at (800) 634-4106 or (404) 656-2668.
Preparing for the Test
1 . This Test Examiner's Manual will be used to administer the CRCTs in Reading,
English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Sociai Studies. Each content
area test consists of multiple-choice items. All content area tests are included in the
Student Test Booklet. Students will use one Student Answer Sheet to record their
answers.
2. For grades 3-8, one proctor for each test session is recommended. When more than
30 students are to be tested in one location, the assistance of a proctor is required-
Proctors may help Test Examiners with room preparation and monitoring and assist
students with the completion of student identification information on the front cover
of the Student Answer Sheets.
3. Before administering the CRCTs, make sure that you have the following materials:
. • A copy of this Test Examiner's Manual
• One Student Test Booklet for each student
» One Student Answer Sheet for each student
• Pre-TD labels with precoded student information
• Two No. 2 pencils with functional erasers for each student
• Blank scratch paper for the Mathematics test (at least two sheets for each student)
• A timing device, such as a clock or watch, to keep track of time during the test
. administration
• A "Testing — Do Not Disturb" sign to post on the classroom door
NOTE: The. Test Examiner should also have a list of the student identification
numbers for all students in the class or group, in case questions arise while filling
in the student information. on the Student Answer Sheets.
4. Arrange test materials so that they can be distributed in an organized and efficient
manner, •
Grades 3-8
Test Examiner's Manual
"Copyright © 2009 by the Gtorgia Department of Etlttwlion
447
5. Systems will receive pre-ID labels to pre-identify demographic information on
Student Answer Sheets, There will be three labels provided for each student; a text
label that can be attached to the Student. Test Booklets to ease distribution in the
classroom, and two labels with precoded student information (one is extra). Follow
these instructions carefully to provide the correct student demographic
information on each Student Answer Sheet;
■ For enrolled students, place pre-ID labels on the front covers of the Student Answer
. Sheets in the space marked "PLACE STUDENT LABEL HERE."
• Verify that the information printed on the pre-ID labels is accurate (system name,
system ID, school name, schooi ID, teacher name, student name, FTE Student ID
arid GTID numbers). If any errors are found, do NOT use the incorrect label.
Instead, notify the School Test Coordinator, Students who do not receive a correct
pre-ID label will need to fill in their demographic information on the Student Answer
Sheet by hand, following the directions in this manual (see pages 10-12). Any incorrect
information on pre-ID labels should be corrected in the system's student records.
Do not change the label in any way. Apply only correct pre-ID labels to the
Student Answer Sheets,
• Not all information included in the pre-ID label is visible. Only specified fields
may be seen on the label, as indicated above. Student demographic information
(including ethnic group, gender, and date of birth) is included in the pre-ID label
and should not be filled in on the Student Answer Sheets. Student demographic
information on the pre-ID label will override any hand-filled information for
ail students.
• Even with a pre-ID label, all students will still need to complete Sections 1 and 8
on the front cover, and the Test Examiner will need to complete the "For Teacher
Use Only" section on the inside front cover, if applicable.
NOTE: Student Test Booklets are designated by a Form number, which should
be filled in by students in Section 8 of their Student Answer Sheets.
• If the student is new to the school/system or for any other reason does not have a
pre-ID label, follow the instructions in this manual to fill in the student demographic
information on the Student Answer Sheet (see pages 10-12). All fields should be
completed accurately (including the FTE Student ID and GTID numbers). Test
Examiners should have a complete list of FTE Student ID and GTID numbers prior
to testing,
• Become familiar with the sections on the Student Answer Sheet. You will want to
have some of this information written on the board prior to the beginning of
test administration, !
7&M Examiner's Manual 4 Grades 3^8
Copyright © 20O9 by lite Georgia Department of Education j
448
6. Before beginning the test, make sure that each student has the following:
• One Student Test Booklet
• One Student Answer Sheet
• Two No. 2 pencils with functional erasers
• At least two sheets of blank scratch paper for the Mathematics test
7. Each student's workspace should be large enough to accommodate an open Student
Test Booklet and a Student Answer Sheet. Workspaces, should be cleared of all other
materials.' During testing, students should be separated by a reasonable distance to
encourage independent work and to prevent collaboration, Fosters, charts, and
other instructional materials related to the content being tested should not be
displayed in the classroom or otherwise made available to students during test
administration. Take down or cover ail such material.
8. You may want to pian an activity for students who finish early. Students may read
a book or do other work if they finish early, but this activity must be unrelated to the
content being tested and students should not be permitted to open their Student Test
Booklets again.
Scheduling the Test
The Reading, English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies CRCTs
will be administered to students within the state testing window of April 6 through May 8,
2009. Systems wiil choose one nine-day testing period within this window.
All students should be tested in surroundings that will provide them with the opportunity
to do their best work on the test. In schools where students in several classes are being
tested, each classroom of .students must take the same test at the same time.
The CRCTs must be'adrninistered in the order prescribed: Reading, English/Language
Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Each section of each test must be
administered in one block of time. Approximately halfway through the administration of
each content area test (between Sections *S and 2), students should be given a 10-minute
break. Both sections of a content area test must be administered on the same day.
Under no circumstances may a content area test be split across multiple days — to do so is
a direct violation of test security.
The administration time for the CRCTs, as indicated in the following table, should be
sufficient for students to complete each test section. All students should be given at
least 45 minutes to complete each test section. If all students finish the section before
70 minutes have passed, the Test Examiner may end the session early, However^ if there
are students who are still productively engaged in completing the section, testing should .
continue for the full 70 minutes. Unless specified in an IEP, IAR or ELL/TPC Plan, students
should have a minimum of 45 minutes ancj, a maximum of 70 minutes to complete each
section. ,
Giades 3-8 5 Test Examiner's Manual
Copyright ©*?Qffl by the Georgia Department of Edulation
449
Page 7
Confidential Non-Public Personal Information
Business Decisions Information, Inc. DBA Business Information Services has a strict privacy policy
concerning the treatment of non-public personal information including, but not limited to, applicants,
claimants, and policyholders, Federal and State laws prohibit us from disclosing non-public personal
information to nonaffiliated third parties unless otherwise permitted or required by law. Non-public
personal information is generally information that personally identifies an individual and which is not
otherwise available to the public. Non-public personal information includes, but is not limited to,
financial and health information.
"Privileged and Confidential, Attorney Work Product"
450
; CRGT Administration Schedule, Grades 3-8
Task ,
I . (ML, ALLOTTED
Reading
Distribute Student Test Booklets
and Student Answer Sheets, and
read directions
Complete the student identification
section (for students without a
pre-ID label)
15-20 minutes
Ttest Administration — Section 1
45—70 minutes
Break
10 minutes
Test Administration — Section 2
45-70 minutes
Total Administration Time
1 15-170 minutes ■
English/Language Arte
Distribute Student Test Booklets
and Student Answer Sheets, and
read directions
1 5-20 minutes
Test Administration — Section 1
45-70 minutes .
Break
10 minutes
Test Administration — Section 2
45-70 minutes
Total Administration Time
1 15-170 minutes
Mathematics
Distribute Student Test Booklets
and Student Answer Sheets, and
read directions
15-20 minutes
Test Administration — Section i '
45-70 minuses
Break
10 minutes
Test Administration-— Section 2
45-70 minutes
Total Administration Time
1 15—170 minutes
Science
Distribute Student Test Booklets
and Student Answer Sheets, and
read directions
15-20 minutes
Test Administration — Section 1
45-70'imnutes
Break
10 minutes
Test Administration — Section 2
45-70 minutes
Total Administration Time
115-170 minutes
Social Studies
Distribute Student Test Booklets
and Student Answer Sheets, and
read directions
15-20 minutes
Test Administration — Section 1
45-70 minutes
Break
1 0 minutes
Test Administration — Section-2
45-70 minutes
Total Administration Time
115-170 minutes
Test Examiner's Manual 6
Copyright © 2009. by the Georgia Department 0/ Education
Grades 3S
451
Administering the CRCTs
This Test Examiner's Manual should be used to administer the Reading, English/
Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies CRCTs. Before you administer
the CRCTs, make sure you have extra No. 2 pencils available and that students' desks are
cleared of all other materials.
On the first day of testing, it is very important that students write their names on the
Student Test Booklets and fill in Section 8 on their Student Answer Sheets with their
particular test Form number. Students should use the same Student Test Booklet and
Student Answer Sheet on ail subsequent days of testing.
Some students may not be familiar with how' to fill in answers. To familiarize students
with the correct procedure, sample items are provided at the beginning of each content
area test. During each test session, circulate around the room and check to see that
students are recording their answers in the correct section of their Student Answer Sheets.
This process wiJi be referred to on subsequent pages as "circulate and check."
Follow the script provided in this manual for administering the Reading, English/Language
Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies CRCTs. You may repeat any part of these
directions as many times as needed, but you should not modify the words used. Use your
professional judgment in responding to student questions that arise during the testing
session. You may clarify directions; however, under no circumstances should you
reword test items, suggest answers, or evaluate student work during the test session.
Read word for word all text that is boxed and printed in bold type and preceded by the
word Say, Text that appears in regular type or italics should not be read aloud to the
students.
For the Mathematics test, students should be given at least two sheets of blank scratch
paper. Students must print their names in the upper right-hand corner of each sheet of
scratch paper they receive. Students may ask for more scratch paper during the test
administration, if necessary. All scratch paper must be accounted for and returned to the
School Test Coordinator with the other test materials. Unless specified by a student's
IEP, calculators are not-allowed on the Mathematics test.
For students with an IEP, IAP, or ELL/TPC Plan that clearly specifies a "Read Aloud"
Accommodation, use a Student Test Booklet to administer the accommodation. It is "
prohibited to test any student with a "Read Aloud" Accommodation unless the
accommodation is specified in the student's IEP, IAP, or ELL/TPC Plan.
Students in grades 3-8 may underline and circle key words or work problems
in their test booklets (using a No. 2 pencil), but only answers marked on i .
Student Answer Sheets will be scored.. i
Grades 3-8 7 7esl Examiner's Manual
Copyright ©20® by the Geprgia Department Education i
452
If testing is interrupted at any time during the test session (by a fire emergency or a child
becoming ill, for example), note the time the interruption begins so that you can calculate
the amount of reserved time the students will need to complete the test session. If students
must leave the room during testing, be sure to lock the door to ensure the security of the
test materials. If you have any questions about an individual situation, please contact your
School or System Test Coordinator.
Administering the Braille Version of the CRCTs
The directions in this manual also apply to the administration of the Braille version of the
CRCTs. Additional Braille instructions are as follows:
• Disregard references to class packs, The Braille test books will be individually
packaged.
• References to specific page numbers in the standard Farm 1 Student Test Booklet
may be incorrect for the Braille version. In order to supply the correct page
numbers and other references, Test Examiners need to review — prior to testing —
all test materials that accompany the Braille test book, including the supplemental
instructions and the standard Form 1 Student Test Booklet.
• The Test Examiner must complete the student identification information for
each student on a Student Answer Sheet. The Test Examiner must also print the
student's name, teacher, school, and system on the front cover of the Braille
test boolt-
. • Indicate on the Student Answer Sheet that the student was administered the Braille
version by filling in the circle next to "Braille" in Section 12.
• Because extra time may be needed for administering the Braille version, it is
recommended that students be tested individually or in a small-group setting,
• Test Examiners who administer the Braille version will use the standard Form 1
Student Test Booklet throughout testing.
• The Test Examiner or proctor must fill in student responses on the Student Answer
Sheet exactly as the student dictates. Under no circumstances should a student's
answer be altered or edited — to do so is a direct violation of test security.
• Keep the transcribed Student Answer Sheet with the other used Student Answer
Sheets from the student's class. The School Test Coordinator should return the
Braille test books with the nonscorable shipment.
Test Examiner's Manual 8 ■ . r Grades 3-8 ■
Copyright <D 2C09'by the Georgia Department of Education '■ 5> :
CVI :
O 1
3:
. „ ; \ .. : o
■ ■ " ■ ^ ■• - ■, .- .■' ,. " ". ' .- : ; / - w
<
000337
453
Administering the Large-Print Version of the CRCTs
The directions in this manual also apply to the administration of the Large-Print version
of the CRCTs. Additional Large- Print instructions are as follows:
• Disregard references to class packs. The Large-Print test books will be
individually packaged.
• The Test Examiner must complete the student identification information for
each student on a Student Answer Sheet. The Test Examiner must also print the
student's name, teacher, school, and system on the front cover of the Large-Print
test book.
• Indicate on the Student Answer Sheet that the student was administered the Large-
Print version by filling in the circle next to "Large-Print" in Section 12.
• Because extra time may be needed for administering the Large-Print version, it is
recommended that students be tested individually or in a small-group setting,
• Students who use a Large-Print version should record their answers directly in the
Large-Print test book by circling the letters for their selected answers,' writing
their responses, or using a similar marking system. The Test Examiner or proctor
must then transcribe student responses onto the Student Answer Sheet exactly as
they appear in the Large-Print test book. Under no circumstances should a student's
answer be altered or edited — to do so is a direct violation of test security.
• Keep the transcribed Student Answer Sheet with the other used Student Answer
Sheets from the student's class. The School Test Coordinator should return the
Large-Print test books with the nonscorable shipment.
'Smiles 3S 9 T£s< Examiner's Manna!
'— Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education ,
454
Distributing the CRCT Materials and Completing
the Student Identification Information
1. Write your name, the name of the school, and the name, of the system on the board.
Say
During the next few days, you will be taking tests in Reading,
English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies.
Some of the questions may be easy, and some may be difficult. You are
expected to answer each question as well as you can. You most fill in
your answers on the Student Answer Sheet with a No. 2 pencil. If you
do not haye a sharpened No. 2 pencil, please raise your hand. [Supply
sharpened No. 2 pencils to students who need them.] ■
I am now going to give you your answer sheet. Please do not open or
write on your answer sheet until I instruct you to do so.
3. Distribute the appropriate grade-level Student Answer Sheet to each student. Monitor
students to make sure they do not open or write on their Student Answer Sheet.
Say
Look at the front cover of your answer sheet. Look at Section 1. Using '
your No. 2 pencil, print your name, teacher name, and the school and
system names in the spaces provided. The information that you need to
complete this section is written on the board. [Circulate and check]
For those students who have a pre-ID label, please put down your
pencils. If you do NOT have a pre-ID label, look at Section 2, "Last
Name" and "First Name." In the boxes below "Last Name," print the
letters of your last name, starting in the first box on the left. Do not leave
any spaces between the letters in your last name. If your last name does
not fit, write as many letters as you can. [Pause to allow students lime to
write their last names.]
In the boxes below "First Name," print the letters of your first name.
This should be your full first name, not a nickname. Do not leave any
spaces between the letters in your first name. If your first name does not
fit, write as many letters as you can, [Pause to allow students time to write
their first names.]
In the box below "M," print the initial letter of your middle name, if you
have a middle name. [Pause to allow students time to write the initial letter
of their middle name.] ' ■ j ■
Now, finish Section 2 by completely filling in the corresponding circles
under the letters that you have printed. For example, if you wrote <(r,"
you should fill in the circle containing "R." [Circulate and check.]
Test Examiner's Manual
10
Copyright s 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
Grades 3-8
455
Say
Look at Section 3, "Date of Birth." Fill in the circle beside the month
in which you were born. Then, print the day and the last two numbers
of the year in which you were born in the appropriate boxes. Fill in the
corresponding circles under the day and year. Days under 10 should
begin with zero. For example, if your birthday is on the fifth day of the
month, you should print and fill in "zero-five." [Circulate and check]
Look at Section 4, "Gender." Fill in the circle next to "Female" if you
are a female or the circle next to "Male" if you are a male. [Circulate
and check.]
Look at Section 5, "Racial/Ethnic Background." Fill in the circle next
to the ethnic group that best describes you. You should fill in only one
circle: Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/Non-Hispanic, Hispanic, American
Indian/Alaskan Native, White/Non-Hispanic, or Multiracial. If you have
any questions about which circle you should fill in, please raise your
hand. [Circulate and check.]
Look at Section 6, "GTID." Print your ten-digit GTTD number starting
in the first box on the left. Fill in the corresponding circles under the
numbers you have printed. If you do not know your GTID number,
please raise your hand. [Circulate and check, providing GTID numbers to
students who have their hands raised.]
Look at Section 7, "FTE Student ID." Print your nine-digit Student ID
number starting in the first box on the left. Fill in the corresponding
circles under the numbers yon have printed. IF you do not know youi*
Student ID number, please raise your hand. [Circulate and cfteck,
providing Student ID numbers to students who have their hands raised.]
[When students are ready, distribute Student Test Booklets to students.]
For those students who have a pre-ID label, please pick up your pencils
and continue to follow along. On the cover of your Student Test Booklet,
please locate your Form number. On the Student Answer Sheet, print the
Form number that matches the test booklet you have received in the box
for Section 8, "Form." Fill in the appropriate circle under the number.
[Circulate and check.]
Leave Sections 9- through 16 blank. I will complete these sections for
you. [Complete these sections after testing in all content areas has been
completed. Directions for completing these sections begin on page 37 of
this manual.]
Are there any questions before we*continue?
Grades
11
Copyright © 2009 by-fhe Georgia Department af fttmalwii
Test Examiner's Manual
456
6. Answer all questions. Walk around the room to see if students have completed the
demographic information correctly.
NOTE for Sections 6 and 7: A GTID is a Georgia Testing Identifier that is used to
track and maintain a student's data within the Georgia Department of Education's data
warehouse and the local Student Information System. All PK-12 students who attend
a public school in Georgia must have a GTID, The GTID is the key identifier used in
all state data collections.
For the PTE Student ID (Section 7), it is imperative that students use the same
student ID number here that the school or system uses to report FTE-type information
to the state. Locally assigned student ID numbers should not be used if they do not
correspond with state-reported information.
Test Examiner's Manual 12 ! Grades 3-8
ID
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education ' 8) ■
CM '■
O "
9
000341
457
Directions for Administering
the Reading CRCT
Reading — Section 1
Estimated time: 70 minutes (plus 10 minutes for the break)
Materials needed:
• Student Test Booklets and Student Answer Sheets
NOTE: Follow the directions on pages 10-12 to complete the student demographic
information on the Student Answer Sheets prior to the start of the Reading test.
• Sharpened No. 2 pencils with erasers
I . Make sure that all desks are cleared and that ail students have their own answer
sheet. Confirm that the Form number of the test booklet corresponds to the Form
number that students have written down in Section 8 of their answer sheets.
Now, look at the test booklet. Print your name on the line provided on
the front cover of your test booklet. Do not open your test booklet until
you are instructed to do so. [Pause.]
When you have finished printing your name on the front cover, set your
test booklet to the side. [Wait until all students have completed this task,]
I will now read some opening instructions to you.
The Reading Criterion-Referenced Competency Test will be
administered in two sections. Both sections of the test are made up
of multiple-choice questions. When answering the multiple-choice
questions, select the best answer and fill in the circle for the answer you
have chosen. Do your best to answer each question.
Now, break the seal on your test booklet by pulling the blue tab away
from the edge of the booklet. Pull the blue tab carefully so that you do
not tear the pages. Do NOT attempt to remove the clear tab that remains.
[Wait until all students have completed this task.]
Open your test booklet to "Reading" on page 4. [Pause,] Read the
General Instructions silently as I read them aloud.
Today you will be taking the Reading Criterion-Referenced Competency
Test. The Readingi:est is made up of multiple-choice questions. A sample
has been included. The1 sample will show you how to mark your answers.
Test Examiner's Manual
14
'Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Bepart/nent of Education
Grades 3-8
458
Say
There are several important things to remember.
• Read each passage carefully.
» Read each question carefully and think about the answer. You may
look back to the reading passage as often as necessary.
• Answer all questions on yonr answer sheet, not in yoar test booklet.
You may write in your test booklet, but only answers marked on
your answer sheet will be scored.
• For each question, choose the one best answer and fill in the circle in
the space provided on your answer sheet.
• If you do not know the answer to a question, fill in your best choice.
You may return to the question later if you have time.
• If you finish the section of the test that you are working on early, you
may review your answers in that section only. You may not review
any other section or go on to the next section of the test.
Are there any questions? [Answer any questions the students may have.]
Tick up your answer sheet and find Section 1 for the Reading test. This is
where you will fill in your responses to the questions. [Pause.] Look at the
sample question on the next page of your test booklet and follow along as
we review the sample question.
The sample test question below is provided to show you what the
questions in Hie test are like and how to mark your answer to each
question. For each question, choose the one best answer and fill in the
circle in the space provided on your answer sheet for the answer you
have chosen. Be sure to mark all of your answers to the questions on
your answer sheet.
Read the sample passage now. .
4. Allow time for students to read the sample passage. Go over the sample question with"
students, and be sure they fill in the answer to the sample question in the appropriate
. place on their answer sheet. Ask students if they have any questions about the sample
test item, and answer any procedural questions.
Grades 3-8 15 Test Examiner's Manual
■ Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
459
Say
You will have 70 minutes to answer the questions in Section 1 of the
Reading test. Read each question carefully and fill in your answer in the
space provided on your answer sheet. Stop when you reach the stop sign
after question 25 in your Student Test Booklet. This will match the line
with the word "stop" beside it on your Student Answer Sheet, If you
finish this section before time is called, you may go back and check your
work in this section only. You may not review any other section or look
ahead to Section 2, Do you have any questions about what to do or where
to fill in your answers? [Answer any procedural questions the students may
have.]
Now, turn the page to Reading, Section 1. You may begin.
6. Walk around the room from time to time to make sure students are filling in their
answers appropriately. All students should be given at least 45 minutes to complete
Section 1 . If all students finish before 70 minutes have passed, go on to #7. However,
if any students are still productively engaged in completing Section 1, allow them the
full 70 minutes before continuing with #7.
Say
Piease stop working.
Jnsert your answer sheet into your test booklet and close your test
booklet. You may now take a break. You may stand and stretch for
10 minutes. Your test booklet should remain closed on your desk.
Please do not talk.
o
8, At this time, allow students to stand and stretch for 10 minutes. Make sure their
answer sheets are inserted into their test booklets and their test booklets are closed.
After no more than 1 0 minutes, continue with #9,
9.
Say
Please sit down again.
Keep your test booklet closed, and wait quietly as we get ready to move
on to the next section.
Test Bx&miner's Manual 16 ' Grades 3~S
01
>J. .Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Dcpuriment of Education ; £r>
CM
O
-rr-r~- < - ,~.-,y,, - - - ■■ ' — ■ ?
<
000344
460
TRANSCRIPTION OF RECORDED STATEMENT
BDI INVESTIGATOR AND THOMASVILLE HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY
Dr. Stacy Brondage
Investigator I'm Stan Williams representing Atlanta Public Schools and the Office of
Internal Resolution. Today's date is Friday, May 2nd, 2008. I'm at
Thomasville Heights Elementary School and preparing to take a statement
from Dr. Stacy Brondage. Dr. Brondage,, would you please state your name?
Dr. Brondage It's Dr. Stacy Brondage.
Investigator Dr. Brondage, do you understand this statement is being recorded?
Dr. Brondage Yes sir.
Investigator Dr. Brondage, do you affirm to answer truthfully and to be the best of your
knowledge?
Dr. Brondage Yes, I do.
Investigator Dr. Brondage how long have you been employed by Atlanta Public Schools?
Dr. Brondage I've been employed by Atlanta Public Schools since 2004. 1 came here in 2001
from, the State Department of Education. So I've been here several years.
Investigator How long have you been at Thomasville Heights Elementary School?
Dr. Brondage Seven years.
Investigator And, what is your position at the school?
Dr. Brondage I'm the Instructions Specialist and the Upper Literacy Coach.
Investigator How many CRCT Testing' shave you been in involved with?
Dr. Brondage I've been involved in testing since 200 1. I usually assist the Test Coordinator.
Investigator In what capacity have you participated in the student testing?
Dr. Brondage As monitors who help distribute the test, help with the insiders, and to collect
the test Occasionally I have administered the test before.
Investigator Where did you administer a test?
Dr. Brondage I administered the test to our First Grade this year because the teacher was out
due to death in the family.
"Privileged and Confidential, Attorney Work Product"
461
Reading' — Section 2
Estimated time: 70 minutes
Say
Now you will take Section 2 of the Reading Criterion-Referenced
Competency Test. Yon will have 70 minutes to answer the questions in
Section 2, Stop when you reach the stop sign after question 50 in your
Student Test Booklet, This will match the line with the word "stop" beside
it on your Student Answer Sheet. If you finish this section before time is
called, you may go back and check your work in this section only. You
may not review any other section or look back to Section 1, When you
are finished, insert your answer sheet into your test booklet, close your
test booklet, and sit quietly or read a book.
Now, take out your answer sheet and find Section 2 for the Reading test.
Open your test booklet to Reading Section 2, question 26. [Pause while
students are opening their test booklets; make sure all students are on the
correct page,]
You may begin. [Make sure students begin filling in their answers in the
correct place on the answer sheet,]
Walk around the room from time to time to make sure students are filling in their
answers appropriately. All students should be given at least 45 minutes to complete
Section 2, If all students finish before 70 minutes have passed, go on to #3. However,
if any students are still productively engaged in completing Section 2, allow them the
full 70 minutes before continuing with #3,
Say
Please stop working. Insert your answer sheet into your test booklet and
close your test booklet.
Collect the test booklets and answer sheets. As you collect them, check each test'
booklet to make sure the student's name is printed on the cover. Make sure the test
booklet Form number matches the Form number filled in under Section 8 of the
Student Answer Sheet. Count the test booklets and answer sheets to confirm that all
test materials are accounted for, and return them to the School Test Coordinator at the
conclusion of each testing day.
Grades 3-8 ' 17 Examiner's Manual
Copyright © 2009 Ay the Georgia Department of 'Education ■
462
Directions for Administering
the English/Language Arts CRCT
English/Language Arts — Section 1
Estimated time; 70 minutes (plus 10 minutes for the break)
Materials needed:
* Student Test Booklets and Student Answer Sheets
' • Sharpened No, 2 pencils with erasers
1. Make sure that all desks are cleared.
Say
I am going to give yon your test booklet and answer sheet. When you
receive them, check to make sure I have given you the correct test
booklet and answer sheet and not another student's. Do not open your
test booklet or mark on your answer- sheet until I tell you to. [Distribute
Student Test Booklets and Student Answer Sheets, }
Set your test booklet to the side, [Pause.] I will now read some opening
instructions to you.
The English/Language Arts Criterion-Referenced Competency Test
will be administered in two sections. Both sections of the test are made
up of multiple-choice questions. When answering the multiple-choice
questions, select the best answer and fill in the circle for the answer you
have chosen. Do your best to answer each question.
Open yonr test booklet to English/Language Arts. Read the General
Instructions silently as I read them aloud.
r
Today you will be taking the English/Language Arts Criterion-
Referenced Competency Test. The English/Language Arts test is made
up of multiple-choice questions. A sample has been included. The sample
will show you how to mark your answers.
Test Examiner's Manual- Grades 3S
Copyrigfu © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
463
Say
There are several important things to remember.
• Read each question carefully and think about the answer,
• Answer all questions on your answer sheet, not in your test
booklet. You may write in your test booklet, but only answers
marked on your answer sheet will be scored,
• For each question, choose the one best answer and fill in the circle
in the space provided on your answer sheet.
• If you do not know the answer to a question, till in your best
choice. You may return to the question later if you have time.
• If you finish the section of the test that you are working on earfy,
you may review your answers in that section only. You may not
review any other section or go on to the next section of the test.
Are there any questions? [Answer any questions the students may have.]
Pick up your answer sheet and find Section I for the Englisli/Language
Arts test. This is where you will fill in your responses to the questions.
[Pause.] Look at the sample question on the nest page of your test
booklet and follow along as we review the sample question.
The sample test question below is provided to show you what the
questions in the test are like and how to mark yonr answer to each
question. For each question, choose the one best answer and fill in the
circle in the space provided on your answer sheet for the answer you
have chosen. Be sure to mark all of yonr answers to the questions on
your answer sheet.
4. Have students read the sample item. Go over the sample question with students, and
be sure they fill in the answer to the sample question in die appropriate place on their
answer sheet. Ask students if they have any questions about the sample test item, and
answer any procedural questions.
You will have 70 minutes to answer the questions in Section 1 of the
English/Language Arts test. Read each question carefully and fill in
your answer in the space provided on your answer sheet Stop when
you reach the stop sign after question 30 in your Student Test Booklet,
This will match the line with the word "stop" beside it on your Student
Answer Sheet. If you finish this section before time is called, you
may go back and check your work in this section only. You may not
review any other section or look ahead to Section 2. Do you have any
questions about what to do or where to fill in your answers? [Answer any
procedural questions the students may have. ]
Now, turn the page to English/Language Arts, Section 1. You may begin.
Grades 3-8
19
Copyright © 20B9 by the Gepf$i<t Department of Education
Test Examiner's Manual
464
6, Walk around the room from time to time to make sure students are filling in their
answers appropriately. All students should be given at least 45 minutes to complete
Section 1. If all students finish before 70 minutes have passed, go on to #7. However,
if any students are still productively engaged in completing Section 1, allow them the
full 70 minutes before continuing with #7.
Say
Please stop working,
Insert your answer sheet into your test booklet and close your test
booklet. You may now take a break. You may stand and stretch for
10 minutes. Your test booklet should remain closed on your desk.
Please do not talk.
At this time, allow students to stand and stretch for 10 minutes. Make sure their
answer sheets are inserted, into their test booklets and their test booklets are closed.
After no more than 10 minutes, continue with #9.
Please sit down again.
Keep your test booklet closed, and wait quietly as we get ready to move
on to the next section.
■ n
Test-Examiner's Manual " 20 ■ Grades 3-8
Cop^hl © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
465
English/Language Arts — Section 2
Estimated time: 70 minutes
Say
Now you will take Section 2 of the English/Language Arts Criterion-
Referenced Competency Test. You will have 76 minutes to answer the
questions in Seetion 2. Stop when you reach the stop sign after question
60 in your Student Test Booklet, This will match the line with the word
"stop" beside it on your Student Answer Sheet. If you finish this section
before time is called, you may go back and check your work in this
section only. You may not review any other section or look back to
Section 1. When you are finished, insert your answer sheet into your
test booklet, close your test booklet, and sit quietly or read a book.
Now, take out your answer sheet and find Section 2 for the English/
Language Arts test. Open your test booklet to English/Language Arts
Section 2, question 31. [Pause while students are opening their test booklets;
make sure all students are on the correct page.]
You may begin. [Make sure students begin filling in their answers in the correct
place on the answer sheet.]
Waik around the room from time to time to make sure students are filling in their
answers appropriately. All students should be given at least 45 minutes to complete
Section 2, If all students finish before 70 minutes have passed, go on to #3. However,
if any students are still productively engaged in completing Section 2, allow them the
full 70 minutes before continuing with #3.
Please stop working.
Insert your answer sheet into your test booklet and close your test booklet.
Collect the test booklets and answer sheets. As you collect them, check each test
booklet to make sure the student's name is printed on the cover, Make sure the test
booklet Form number matches the Form number filled in under Section 8 of the
Student Answer Sheet. Count the test booklets and answer sheets to confirm that all
test materials are accounted for, and return them to the School Test Coordinator at the
conclusion of each testing day.
Grades 3-3 21 Test Examiner's Manual ;
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Deptritiamt of Etlmaiioii <o
<N ;
O '
a; ■.
■ : o
'■■ . w ;
000349
466
Directions for Administering
the Mathematics CRCT
Mathematics — Section 1
Estimated time: 70 minutes (plus 10 minutes for the break)
Materials needed:
• Student Test Booklets and Student Answer Sheets
• Sharpened No. 2 pencils with erasers
• Two sheets of blank scratch paper per student
NOTE: Calculators are not allowed during any portion of this test.
1 . Make sure that all desks are cleared.
Say
I am going to give you your test booklet and answer sheet. When you
receive them, check to make sure I have given you the correct test
booklet and answer sheet and not another student's. Do not open your
test booklet or mark on your answer sheet until I teH you to. [Distribute
Student Test Booklets and Student Answer Sheets.}
I am providing you with two clean sheets of scratch paper to use during
the Mathematics Criterion-Referenced Competency Test. You can use
the scratch paper to help you solve the math problems, but be sure to
record all your answers on your answer sheet. [Distribute two sheets of
blank scratch paper to each student.]
If you need more scratch paper during the test administration, please
raise your hand. Now, write your name in the upper right-hand corner
of each sheet of scratch paper. I wilt collect the scratch paper at the end
of testing, whether you use it or not. {Allow students time to write their
names on the scratch paper.]
Set your test booklet to the side. {Pause.] I will now read some opening
instructions to you.
The Mathematics Criterion-Referenced Competency Test will be
administered in two sections. Both sections of the test are made up
of multiple-choice questions, When answering the multiple-choice
questions, select the best answer and fill in the circle for the answer
you havtfehosen. Do your best to answer each question.
Test Examiner's Manual
22
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Departmeni <if Education
Grades 3-8
467
Say
Open your test booklet to Mathematics. Read the General Instructions
silently as I read them aloud.
Today you wiil be taking the Mathematics Criterion-Referenced Competency
lest The Mathematics test is made up of multiple-choice questions. A sample
has been included. The sample will show you how to mark your answers.
There are several important things to remember.
• Read each question carefully and think about the answer.
• Answer all questions on your answer sheet, not in your test booklet.
You may write in your test booklet, but only answers marked on your
answer sheet will be scored.
• For each question, choose the one best answer and fill in the circle in
the space provided on your answer sheet.
• If you do not know the answer to a question, fill in your best choice.
Yon may return to the question later if you have time.
• If you finish the section of the test that you are working on early, you
may review your answers in that section only. You may not review
any other section or go on to the next section of the test.
Are there any. questions? [Answer any questions the students may have.]
Pick up your answer sheet and find Section 1 for the Mathematics test.
This is where you will fill in your responses to the questions. [Pause.]
Look at the sample question on the next page of your test booklet and
follow along as we review the sample question.
The sample test question below is provided to show you what the
questions in the test are like and how to mark your answer to each
question, For each question, choose the one best answer and fill in the
circle in the space provided on your answer sheet for the answer you
have chosen. Be sure to mark all of your answers to the questions on
your answer sheet.
4. Have students read the sample item. Go over the sample question with students, and be
sure they All in the answer to the sample question in the appropriate place on their answer
sheet. Ask students if they have any questions about the sample test item, and answer any
procedural questions. If you are administering the grade 3, 4, or 5 CRCT, skip ahead to
, #6. If you are administering the grade 6, 7, or 8 CRCT, continue with #5. !
5.
Say
Look at tlie bottom of the page, under the heading "Formulas." Below
areJwmulas you may find useful as you work through the problems.1
Howevei>some of the formulas may not he used. You may refer to this
page as yon take the test. t . .. • •
Grades 3-8
23
Copyright 0 2009 by the Georgia Dtyartment of Education
Test Examiner's Manual
468
Say
You will have 70 minutes to answer the questions in Section 1 of the
Mathematics test, Read each question carefully and All in your answer
in the space provided on your answer sheet. Stop when you reach the
stop sign after question 35 in yonr Student Test Booklet. This will match
the line with the word "stop" beside it on your Student Answer Sheet. If
you finish this section before time is called, you may go back and check
your work in this section only. You may not review any other section or
look ahead to Section 2. Do you have any questions about what to do
or where to fill in your answers? [Answer arty procedural questions the
students may have.]
Now, turn the page to Mathematics, Section 1. You may begin.
Walk around the room from time to time to make sure students are filling in their
answers appropriately. All students should be given at least 45 minutes to complete
Section 1 . If all students finish before 70 minutes have passed, go on to #8. However,
if any students are still productively engaged in completing Section 1 , allow them the
full 70 minutes before continuing with #8.
Say;
Please stop working.
Insert your answer sheet and scratch paper into your test booklet and
dose your test booklet. Yoa may now take a break. You may stand and
stretch for 10 minutes. Your test booklet should remain closed on your
desk. Please do not talk.
9. At this time, allow students to stand and stretch for 10 minutes. Make sure their
answer sheets and scratch paper are inserted into their test booklets and their test
booklets are closed. After no more than 10 minutes, go on to #10.
10.
Please sit down again.
Keep your test booklet closed, and wait quietly as we get ready to move
on to the next section.
Tesl Examiner's Manual • 24 '* Grades 3-8
'Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Btparlmem of Education
469
Mathematics — Section 2
Estimated time: 70 minutes
Say
Now you will take Section 2 of the Mathematics Criterion-Referenced
Competency Test You will have 70 minutes to answer the questions in
Section 2. Stop when you reach the stop sign after question 70 in yonr
Student Test Booklet. This will match the line with the word "stop" beside
it on your Student Answer Sheet. If you finish this section before time is
called, you may go back and check your work in this section only. You
may not review any other section or look back to Section 1. When you
are finished, insert your answer sheet and scratch paper into your test
booklet, close your test booklet, and sit quietly or read a book.
Now, take out your answer sheet and find Section 2 for the Mathematics
test. Open your test booklet to Mathematics Section 2, question 36.
[Pause while students are opening their test booklets; make sure all students
are on the correct page.]
2. If you are administering the grade 3, 4, or 5 CRCT, skip ahead to #4. If you are
administering the grade 6, 7, or 8 CRCT, continue with #3.
Say
"When you find Section 2 in your test booklet, turn back one page and
look under the heading "Formulas." Below are formulas you may
find useful as you work through the problems. However, some of the
formulas may not be used, You may refer to this page as you take
the test.
Say
You may begin. [Make sure students begin filling in their answers In the
correct place on the answer sheet]
5. Walk around the room from time to time to make sure students are filling in their
answers appropriately. All students should be given at least 45 minutes to complete
Section 2. If all students finish before 70 minutes have passed, go on to #6. However,
if any students are still productively engaged in completing Section 2, allow them the
■ full 70 minutes before continuing with #6.
- - ^
Grades 3-8 25 *est Examiner's manual
Copyright © 2003 by the Geai-gia Department of Education
470
Say
Please stop working.
Insert your answer sheet and scratch paper into your test booklet and
close your test booklet.
Collect the test booklets and answer sheets and the two sheets (minimum) of scratch
paper. As you collect them, check each test booklet to make sure the student's name
is printed on the cover. Make sure the test booklet Form number matches the Form
number filled in under Section .8 of the Student Answer Sheet. Count the test booklets
and answer sheets to confirm that all test materials are accounted for, and return them
to the School Test Coordinator at the conclusion of each testing day.
Test Examiner's Manual
26
Copyright £T5£TO by the Georgia Department of Education
! Grades 3~S
471
Investigator Prior to the 2008 CRCRT Testing at Thomasville Heights, what was your
responsibility?
Dr. Brondage Well I administered a test for a First Grade class but before I did that, in the
morning I would assist the Special Reading materials out of state in order to
make sure the tests never left alone prior to the distribution; and I did help
collect them.
Investigator Are you familiar with the state rules for administering CRCT Testing?
Dr. Brondage Yes sir.
investigator Did the Principal at Thomasville Heights meet with you prior to this year's
testing to discuss the upcoming test?
Dr. Brondage Yes sir.
Investigator When did that meeting occur?
Dr. Brondage It occurred a few days before the testing- 1 can't give you the exact date- but
we had an In-service prior to testing.
Investigator Who conducted the In-service?
Dr. Brondage Tracy Fischer.
Investigator And was that a different meeting from the meeting with the Principal?
Dr. Brondage A separate meeting? Yes.
Investigator The meeting with the Principal, when did it occur?
Dr. Brondage We have Administrative break-through so that would have occurred on a
Monday morning probably.
Investigator In the meeting in which the CRCT Testing was discussed, specifically what
was said, as best you can recall?
Dr. Brondage Just to make sure we were monitoring the students that everyone actively
monitors, just to ensure that if the students got off track that they get them back
on track. Just to encourage the students to do their best, and pretty much just
motivational; as One prepared for the kids and was ready to go.
Investigator Have there been any discussions at the school about the need to make the
Superintendent's target?
Dr. Brondage Yes sir. We talked about the targets; at the time so we know exactly what we
have to do in order to meet the targets.
"Privileged and Confidential,' Attorney Work Product".
472
Directions for Administering
the Science CRCT
Science — Section 1
Estimated time: 70 minutes (plus 10 minutes for the break)
Materials needed:
• Student Test Bookie ts and Student Answer Sheets
» . Sharpened No , 2 pencils wi Lh erasers
1. Make sure that all desks are cleared.
Say
I am going to give you your test booklet and answer sheet. When you
receive them, check to make sure I haye given you the correct test
booklet anil answer sheet and not another student's. Do not open your
test booklet or mark on your answer sheet until I tell you to. [Distribute
Student Test Booklets and Student Answer Sheets, ]
Set your test booklet to the side. [Pause,] I wili now read some opening
instructions to you.
The Science Criterion-Referenced Competency Test will be administered
in two sections. Both sections of the test are made up of multiple-choice
questions. When answering the multiple-choice questions, select the best
answer and fill in the circle for the answer you have chosen. Do your best
to answer each question.
Open your test booklet to Science. Read the General Instructions silently
as I read them aloud.
Today you will be taking the Science Criterion-Referenced Competency
Test. The Science test is made up of multiple-choice questions. A sample
has been included. The sample will show you how to mark your answers.
Ihst Examiner 's Manual 28 ' Grades 3-8
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department a/ Education :
473
Say
There are several important things to remember.
* Read each question carefully and think about the answer.
• Answer all questions on your answer sheet, not in your test booklet
You may write in your test booklet, but only answers marked on
your answer sheet will be scored.
* For each question, choose the one best answer and fill in the circle in
the space provided on your answer sheet,
» If you do not know the answer to a question, fill in your best choice.
You may return to the question later if you have time,
• If you finish the section of the test that you are working on early, you
may review your answers in that section only. You may not review
any other section or go on to the next section of the test.
Are there any questions? [Answer any questions the students may have,]
Pick up your answer sheet and find Section 1 for the Science test. This is
where you will fill in your responses to the questions. [Pause.] Look at the
sample question on the next page of your test booklet and follow along as
we review the sample question.
The sample test question below is provided to show yon what the
questions in the test are like and how to mark your answer to each
question. For each question, choose the one best answer and fill in the
circle in the space provided on your answer sheet for the answer you
have chosen. Be sure to mark all of your answers to the questions on
your answer sheet.
4. Have students read the sample item. Go over the sample question with students, and
be sure they fill in the answer to the sample question in the appropriate place on their
answer sheet. Ask students if they have any questions about the sample test item, and
answer any procedural questions.
You will have 70 minutes to answer the questions in Section 1 of the
Science test. Read each question carefully and fill in your answer in the
space provided on your answer sheet. Stop when you reach the stop sign
after question 35 in your Student Test Booklet. This will match the Hue
with the word "stop" beside it on your Student Answer Sheet. If you
finish this section before time is called, you may go back and check your
work iu this section only. You may not review any other section or look
ahead to Section 2. Do you have any questions about what to do or where
to fill in your answers? [Answer any procedural questions the students may
have.]
a
Now, turn the page to Science, Section 1. You may begin.
Grades 3-8
29
.Cvpyrigllt © 2O09.byjlie Gwrgia.Dcpartmenl of Education
Test Examiner's Manuel
474
6. Walk around the room from time to time to make sure students are filling in their
answers appropriately. All students should be given at least 45 minutes to complete
Section 1 . If all students finish before 70 minutes have passed, go on to #7. However,
if any students are still productively engaged in completing Section I, allow them the
full 70 minutes before continuing with #7.
Say
Please stop working.
Insert your answer sheet into your test booklet and close your test
booklet. You may now take a break. You may stand and stretch for
10 minutes. Your test booklet should remain closed on your desk.
Please do not talk.
8. At this time, allow students to stand and stretch for 10 minutes. Make sure their
answer sheets are inserted into their test booklets and their test booklets are closed.
After no more than 10 minutes, continue with #9.
Say
Please sit down again.
Keep your test booklet closed, and wait quietly as we get ready to move
on to the next section.
Test Examiner's*Misnuitl ■ " "30 Grades 3-8
'-" Copyright <9 2009 by the Georgia Department <rf Eilttcation ;■
475
Science — Section 2
Estimated time; 70 minutes
Say
Now you will take Section 2 of the Science Criterion-Referenced
Competency Test. You will have 70 minutes to answer the questions in
Section 2. Stop when you reach the stop sign after question 70 in your
Student Test Booklet. This will match the line with the word "stop" beside
it on your Student Answer Sheet. If you finish this section before time is
called, you may go back and check your work in this section only. You
may not review any other section or look back to Section I. When yon
are finished, insert your answer sheet into your test booklet, close your
test booklet, and sit quietly or read a book.
Now, take out your answer sheet and find Section 2 for the Science test.
Open your test booklet to Science Section 2, question 36. [Pause while
students are opening their test booklets; make sure all students are on the
correct page,]
Vbu may begin. [Make sure students begin filling in their aiswers in the
correct place on the answer sheet]
Walk around the room from time to time to make sure students are filling in their
answers appropriately. All students should Be given at least 45 minutes to complete
Section 2. If all students linish before 70 minutes have passed, go on to #3. However,
if any students are still productively engaged in completing Section 2, allow them the
full 70 minutes before continuing with #3.
Please stop working.
Insert your answer sheet into your test booklet and close your test booklet
Collect the test booklets and answer sheets. As you collect them, check each test
booklet to make sure the student's name is printed on the cover. Make sure the test
booklet Form number matches, the Form number filled in under Section 8 of the
Student Answer Sheet, Count the test booklets and answer sheets to confirm that all
test materials are accounted for, and return them to the School Test Coordinator at
the conclusion of each testing day.
Gracles 3-8' 31 list Examiner's Manual ■
Copyright & 2009 by the Georgia Department $ Education
476
Directions for Administering
the Social Studies CRCT
Social Studies — Section 1
Estimated time: 70 minutes (plus 10 minutes for the break)
Materials needed:
* Student Test Booklets and Student Answer Sheets
• Sharpened No. 2 pencils with erasers
1. Make sure that all desks are cleared.
2.
Say
I am going to give you your test booklet and answer sheet. When you
receive them, check to make sure I have given you the correct test
booklet and answer sheet and not another student's. Do not open your
test booklet or mark on your answer sheet until I tell you to.
{Distribute Student Test Booklets and Student Answer Sheets.]
Set your test booklet to the side. [Pause.] I will now read some opening
instructions to you.
The Social Studies Criterion-Referenced Competency Test will be
administered in two sections. Both sections of the test are made up
of multiple-choice questions. When answering the raultiple^choice
questions, select the best answer and fill in the circle for the answer you
have chosen. Do your best to answer each question.
Open your test booklet to Social Studies. Read the General Instructions
silently as I read them aloud.
Today you will be taking the Social Studies Criterion-Referenced .
Competency Test. The Social Studies test is made up of multiple-choice
questions. A sample has been included. The sample will show you how to
mark your answers.
Test Examiner's Manual 32
- Copyright &2D09 by the Georgia Department of Education
Grades 3-8
All
Say
There are several important things to remember.
• Read each question carefully and think about the answer.
• Answer all questions on your answer sheet, not in your test
booklet. You may write in your test booklet, but only answers
marked on your answer sheet will be scored.
• For each question, choose the one best answer and fill in the circle
in the space provided on your answer sheet.
• If you do not know the answer to a question, fill in your best
choice. You may return to the question later if you have time.
• If you finish the section of the test that you are working on early,
you may review your answers in that section only. You may not
review any other section or go on to the next section of the test.
Are there any questions? [Answer any questions the students may have.]
Pick up your answer sheet and find Section 1 for the Social Studies test
This is where you will fill in your responses to the questions. [Pause.]
Look at the sample question on the next page of your test booklet and
follow along as we review the sample question.
The sample test question below is provided to show you what the
questions in the test are like and how to mark your answer to each
question. For each question, choose the one best answer and fill in the
circle in the space provided on your answer sheet for the answer you
have chosen. Be sure to mark all of your answers to the questions on
your answer sheet.
4, Have students read the sample item, Go over the sample question with students, and
be sure they fill in the answer to the sample question in the appropriate place on dieir
answer sheet. Ask students if they have any questions about the sample test item, and '
answer any procedural questions. ' ' ■
You will have 70 minutes to answer the questions in Section 1 of the
Social Studies test. Read each question carefully and fill in your answer
in the space provided on your answer sheet. Stop when you reach the
stop sign after question 35 in your Student Test Booklet, This will match
the line with the word "stop" beside it on your Student Answer Sheet. If
you finish this section before time is called, you may go back and check
your work in this section only. You may not review any other section or
look ahead to Section 2. Do you have any questions about what to do
or where to fill in your answers^ [Answer any procedural questions the
students may have.]
0
Now, turn the page to Social Studies, Section 1. You may begin.
Grades J— 5
33
Coiinrigli! © 2009%y the Georgia Departmens of Education
Test Examiner's Manual
478
Walk around the room from time to time to make sure students arc filling in their
answers appropriately. AH students should be given at least 45 minutes to complete
Section 1 . If all students finish before 70 minutes have passed, go on to #7. However,
if any students are still productively engaged in completing Section I, allow them the
full 70 minutes before continuing with #7.
Say
Please stop working.
Insert your answer sheet into your test booklet and close your test
booklet. You may now take a break. You may stand and stretch for
10 minutes. Your test booklet should remain closed on your desk.
Please do not talk.
8. At this time, allow students to stand and stretch for 10 minutes. Make sure their
answer sheets are inserted into their test booklets and their test booklets are closed.
After no more than 10 minutes, continue with #9.
9.
Say
Please sit down again.
Keep your test booklet closed, and wait quietly as we get ready to move
on to the next section.
Test Examiner's Manual 34
■ . ■■ - Copyright © 20Q9 by the Georgia Department qf Education
Gmdes 3-8
479
Social Studies — Section 2
Estimated time: 70 minutes
Say
Now you will take Section 2 of the Social Studies Criterion-Referenced
Competency Test. You will have 70 minutes to answer the questions in
Section 2. Stop when you reach the stop sign after question 70 in your
Student Test Booklet. This will match the line with the word "stop" beside
it on your Student Answer Sheet. If you finish this section before time is
called, you may go back and check your work in this section only. You
may not review any other section or look back to Section 1. When you
are finished, insert your answer sheet into your test booklet, close your
test booklet, and sit quietly or read a book.
Now, take out your answer sheet and find Section 2 for the Social Studies
test. Open your test booklet to Social Studies Section 2, question 36.
[Pause while students are opening their test booklets; make sure all students
are on the correct page.]
You may begin. [Make sure students begin filling in their answers in the
correct place on the answer sheet]
Walk around the room from time to time to make sure students are filling in their
answers appropriately. AH students should be given at least 45 minutes to complete
Section 2. If all students finish before 70 minutes have passed, go on to #3. However,
if any students are still productively engaged in completing Section 2, aliow them the
full 70 minutes before continuing with #3.
Say
Please stop working,
Insert your answer sheet into your test booklet and close your test booklet.
Collect the test booklets and answer sheets. As you collect them, check each test
booklet to make sure the student's name is printed on the cover. Make sure the test
booklet Form number matches the Form number filled in under Section 8 of the
Student Answer Sheet. Count the test booklets and answer sheets to confirm that all
test materials are accounted for, and return them to the School Test Coordinator at the
concussion of each testing day.
Grades 3-8 • J .35 Test Examiner's Manual
*-'. Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education . ,
480
Post-Testing Activities
This section describes what a Test Examiner should do after testing in all content areas is
complete. Read this information carefully and follow all directions. If you have
questions, contact your School Test Coordinator.
Encoding Student Information
Federal and state regulations require accurate coding of student demographic information.
Follow these steps to verify the coding of this information:
1. For Student Answer Sheets without a pre-ID label, verify that Sections 1 through 8
have been completed with tlie correct information and the appropriate circles have
been filled in for each section.
Test Examiners must ensure that each student's Student Answer Sheet is correctly-
identified with both his or her nine-digit state FTE Student ID number and his or her
ten-digit GTJD number. No other student identification numbers may be used.
2. For Student Answer Sheets with a pre-ID label, verify that Sections I and 8 have been
completed with the correct information.
3. Use the following directions to complete the "For Teacher Use Only" section on
the inside front cover of the Student Answer Sheets. Fill in the appropriate circles in
Sections 9 through 14 as applicable for each student.
After you have completed the "For Teacher Use Only" section for applicable students, you
will need to check each Student Answer Sheet to make sure it is free of any stray marks.
ONLY answers filled in properly (with a No. 2 pencil) will be scored and reported, Return
the Student Answer Sheets to the School Test Coordinator. Make sure materials are stacked
in the order prescribed in this manual (see page 45),
Completing Sections 9-14: "For Teacher Use Only"
It is imperative that information be filled in correctly for each student taking the CRCTs.
Federal and state regulations require complete and accurate coding of student information
for reporting purposes. Sections 9 through 14 should be left blank if they are not applicable
to the student.
Grades 3-8 37 Test Examiner's Manual
~" Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education \
481
Section 9: SRC
The information provided below wiH help you assign the correct State-Required Codes
(SRCs) for students who receive special education services:
• If the student receives special education services, fill in the appropriate circle(s)
next to the student's classification (s). Please refer to the student's Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) for the appropriate classification(s).
NOTE: For the student's primary classification, only one response circle should be
filled in for SRCs 1-12 or 14-15. Additional response circles for SRCs 13-14 and
1 6-19 may be filled in as applicable, SRCs are listed in the following table.
OS Visual Impairments
1 1 Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
02 Deaf/Hard of Hearing
12 Other Health Impairments
03 Deaf/Blind
1 3 English Language Learner (ELL) •
04 Spec: fie .Learning Disabilities
14 Section 504
05 Mild Intellectual Disabilities
15 Significant Development Delay (K-5 only)
06 Traumatic Brain Injury
16 TMe I Reading
07 Moderate/Severe/Profound Intellectual Disabilities
17 Title I Math
. 08 Autism
18 Migrant Certified
09 Orthopedic Impairments
19 English Language Learner — Monitored
i 0 Speech-Language impairments
• If a Georgia Migrant Education Agency has identified the student as Migrant
Certified, (ill in the appropriate circle (18), The four regional Georgia Migrant
Education Agencies have provided each system with a listing of students who are
Migrant Certified, Only certified students should be coded,
• If the student is classified under Section 504, fill in the appropriate circle (14),
A student is eligible to be coded as Section 504 if he or she has a current Individual
Accommodation Plan (IAP) on file.
• If the student is identified as an English Language Learner (ELL) according to
Board of Education Rule 36G-4-5-.02, fill in the appropriate circle (13). A student
is eligible to be coded as ELL if the student's native language is not English and
he or she is eligible for English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) services
in accordance with Rule 160-4-5-.02, regardless of whether or not the student
receives ESOL services. Student's who are not eligible for ESOL services (as
specified in Rule 160-4-5-.02) may not be coded as ELL. Pill in circle 19 for those
students who have exited the ESOL program but who are still being monitored.
Test Examiner's Manna! 38 " . .Grades 3-8
Copyright & 2009 by lite Geargia Department dflUlacution
482
3
Investigator
Dr. Brondage
Investigator
Dr. Brondage
Investigator
Dr. Brondage
Investigator
Dr. Brondage
Investigator
Dr. Brondage
Investigator
Dr. Brondage
Investigator
Dr. Brondage
Investigator
Dr. Brondage
Investigator
Dr. Brondage
What's the setting of the meeting? Is it a faculty meeting? An individual
meeting? What is the general setting?
Generally faculty meetings, however, our coaches- the Literacy Coaches and
CRCT Math Coaches- we meet at state levels as well and just talk about ways
to help our students be successful.
Did you feel pressured by the discussions or discussions to meet the
Superintendent's target?
Absolutely not No sir.
Were there ever any threats made, directly or indirectly, to parties who were
meeting the Superintendent's targets?
No.
Were PDP's ever referenced as a disciplinary action that would be pursued if
Superintendent's targets were not met?
No sir.
Did the Principal or anyone suggest to you that hints or answers be provided to
students during the testing?
No sir.
Were there any irregularities or issues with the CRCT Testing to your
knowledge?
Yes, there was one, A test answer sheet was misplaced. While I don't suspect
that it was missing, it was accounted for on Friday, but on Monday, this
answer document could not be located.
Now, what class was the test from?
From Ms. Gisele. Brown's Fourth grade class.
What was your involvement in that process?
I assisted with the checking procedure with that class and I know that she
turned in the correct number of answer sheets and test booklets on Friday.
You say you were involved in the checking process?
Yes, I counted the tests, her tests.
"Privileged and Confidential, Attorney Work Product"
CM
<o
CN
o
o
O
I
«
CL
<
483
Accommodations (requires at least one SRC)
If the student was given a test administration accommodation based on his or her
Individualized Education Plan (IEP), Individual Accommodation Plan (IAP), or English
Language Learner/Testing Participation Committee (ELL/TPC) Plan, fill in the appropriate
circle in the Accommodations section, A current IEP, IAP, or ELL/TPC Plan must be on file
for each student who receives an accommodation. Only state-approved accommodations
may. be used, following the guidance issued by GaDOE. If an accommodation is included
in a student's plan that is not on the approved list, it must be reported as an irregularity,
Students who are served by Student Support Teams (SST) but do not qualify for services
under IDEA or Section 504 status may not be granted accommodations. Failure to
provide appropriate accommodations or providing accommodations to students
who are not eligible is a direct violation of state regulations and must be reported.
Accommodation Type
If the student was given a test administration accommodation based on his or her IEP,
IAP, or ELL/TPC, fill in the appropriate circle(s) under Accommodation Type to identify
it as a Setting, Presentation, Response, or Scheduling accommodation..
Conditional Administration
Conditional administrations result from the use of conditional accommodations.
Conditional accommodations are more expansive than standard accommodations, and
are intended to provide- access to stndents with more severe disabilities or very limited
English proficiency who would not be able to access the tests without such assistance. Only
students meeting strict criteria (outlined in the 2008-2009 Student Assessment Handbook)
are eligible for conditional accommodations. Any use of conditional accommodations
must be coded. Per State Board rule, only a small number of students should participate
in conditional administrations. ELL-M students are NOT eligible for conditional
accommodations.
Definitions of Setting, Presentation, Response, and Scheduling accommodations (both
standard and conditional) are provided in the following table.
Accommodations
' Stuuents with
. English Language.
Disabilities'. IEP
XlfiAKNERS: ' ' ' ,
■
ANI> SECTION 504 IAP
.■> ■'■-<.^.*y.'*:-.i'-r--!"\*---'.-' '
ELL/Tl'C Plan
SeltiiigAcenmrnorlnfmiis
Special education/ESOL classroom
Standard
Standard
Special or adapted lighting
Standard.
Small group
Standard
Standard
Preferential seating
^j^i.. , — .
Standard
Standard
Soisnd field adaptations
Standard
Adaptive furniture (e.g., slant board)
Standard
"Grade.? 3-8 39 Test Examiner's Manual
" Copyright O 100? by the Georgia Department of Education
484
Accommodations
Stddents with
Disabilities: IEP ,
AND Section 504 IAP
English Language
• . ■ Learners:
" ■ EIX/TPC I'i an
Individual or study carrel
Standard
Standard
Individual administration
Standard
Standard
Test administered by certiSed educator familiar
to student
Standard
Presentation Accommodations
Large-Print
Standard |.
Sign the directions
Standard
Sign test questions
Standard
Sign reading passages
Conditional
(restricted to eligible
students in
grades 3-8 only)
Explain or paraphrase the directions for clarity (in
English only)
Standard
Standard
Braille
Standard
Color overlays, templates, or place markers
Standard
Standard
Use of highlighter by student
Oral reading of test questions in English only by
reader or assistive technology
Standard
Standard
Oral reading of reading passages in English only by
reader or assistive technology
Conditional
(restricted to eligible
students in
grades 3-8 only)
Conditional
(restricted to eligible
. students in
grades 3-8 only)
Low vision aids (e.g., CCTV, magnifying equipment)
Standard
Repetition of directions (in English only)
Standard
Standard
Materials presented with contrast and tactile cues
Standard
Photograph used
Substitute manipulative
Use directions that have been marked by teacher
Audio amplification devices or noise buffer/listening
devices
Standard
. Response Accommodations
Technology applications, such as Brailler, word
processor, or other communications device witSvall ■■
grammar and spell-check devices disabled
Standard
Student marts answers in test booklet
Standard
Standard
Student points to answers
Standard
Standard
Verbal response in English only . .
_>> Standard
Standard
Braille writer
^Standard
Basic function calculator or adapted basic calculator
" Conditional
(restricted to eligible
students only) '
Test Examiner's Manual 40 ' Grades 3-8
Copyright & 2009 byihetSeorgia Department of Education
485
_ Accommodations
■ ■'■ ■ Students wm '
Disabilities: IKP
■'; and Section 504 TAP '
English Lanuiuce
I.uaknmis:
Er.L/TPCPiAN
Scribe
Standard
Adapted writing tools (e,g., pencil grips, large-
diameter pencil)
Standard
Word-to- word dictionary
Standard
Scheduling Accommodations , v' ' /: ■ y ' ■
Frequent monitored breaks
Standard
Standard
Optimal time of day for testing
Standard
Extended time
Standard
Standard
Flexibility in the order of administration for
content areas
Standard
Extending sessions over multiple days
Section 10: First Year ELL Deferred
ELL students enrolled for the first time in a school in the United States may receive a
one-time deferment from assessments in content areas other than mathematics and
science. If the student was deferred from any CK.CT content areas, fiH in the appropriate
response circles in this section.
Section 11: PTNA
If the student was present for the test administration but did not attempt any items in one or
more content areas, this must be coded in the appropriate response circle under "PTNA."
Section 12: Braille/Large-Print
If the student was tested with a Braille or Large-Print version of the CRCTs, this must be
coded in the appropriate response circle under "BraiUe/Large-Print."
Section 13: EIP Served
If thestudenthas received services from the state's Early Intervention Program (EIP)
at any time during the current school year, fill in the "Yes" circle under "EIP Served"
(relevant to grades 1-5 only).
Section 14: Local Optional Coding
Systems may choose to use this section to code special program students to gauge their
performance on the CRCTs. System Test Coordinators will designate a code to be filled
in for this section; fill in the code number starling with the first box on the left. Note that
systems will not receive any special reports based on this coding. The coding will
generate information on each system's data file for the system to extract and disaggregate
based on their requirements.
. .i
Grades '41 Examiner's Manual
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Department of Education
486
Completing Sections 15 and 16: "State-Directed Use Only"
Sections 15 and 16 should generally be filled in by the School Test Coordinator only.
Directions for filling in these sections are as follows.
Section 15: SDTJA: Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic
Support (GNETS) Only
The following table is to be used by GNETS programs to report their assigned facilities
code. The two-digit code should be filled in under Section -15 for all students who are
served at a GNETS facility. This information is being collected in order to provide reports
to each center.
. • * • ' • GNETS -::"''v'-;/: V>:
■ Pkokham Name
fi PA-I 'Ii!«T)THT'JPTTlT*
' ' Code
Alpine Program
01
Burwell Program
02
Ccdarwoad Program
03
Coastal Academy
04
Coastal Georgia Comprehensive Academy
05
Mainstay
06
Dekalb-Rockdale Program
07
Ham Alexander Academy
08
Flint Area Learning Program
09 '
Harrell Learning Center
10
HA.V.H.N. Academy
11'
Heartland Academy
12
Horizon Acadsmy
13
Northstar Educational and Therapeutic Services
14
North Metro Program
15
Northwest Georgia Educational Program
16
Oak Tree Program
■17
GNETS of Ocotiee
18
Pathways Educational Program
19
River Quest Program
20
Rutland Academy
21
Sand Hills Program
22
South Metro Program
23
Woodall Program
24
Test Examiner's Manual -* 42 '■ Grades 3-8
Copyright © 2009 by the Georgia Depanmrnt of Education ,
487
THE STATE OF GEORGIA
EXECUTIVE ORDER
BY THE GOVERNOR:
Whereas; An audit conducted by the Office of Student Achievement found indications
of possible test tampering in public school systems across the State,
including Atlanta Public Schools ("APS") and Dougherty County Public
Schools; and
Whereas; The State Board of Education directed all relevant school systems to
investigate whether and where actual test tampering occurred and report
back to the State Board of Education; and
Whereas: The investigations conducted by APS and Dougherty County Public Schools
were insufficient in scope and in depth; and
Whereas; The laws and Constitution of this State vest in me the chief executive
powers and the duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and
confer upon me broad investigatory powers; and
Whereas: The Office of Student Achievement has requested that I direct an
independent investigation into this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME AS
Governor of the state of Georgia, it is hereby
Ordered: That Michael J, Bowers and Robert E. Wilson are hereby appointed as
special investigators into possible test tampering and any related issues in
Atlanta Public Schools and Dougherty County Public Schools, in which
capacity they shall have all investigatory powers granted to me or the Office
of Student Achievement by Georgia law, including but not limited to those
powers laid out in O.C.G.A. §§ 20-14-26, 45-15-17, and 45-15-19.
It Is Further
ORDERED: j That Special Investigators Bowers and Wilson shall be assisted by Richard
L. Hyde and others as designated by Bowers and Wilson or by future
Executive Order,
488
It Is Further
ORDERED: That Special Investigators Bowers and Wilson shall be compensated out of
available funds, in a manner consistent with the executed engagement
letters attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively.
This
£6
.day of August, 2010.
VERNOR
489
STATE OF GEORGIA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
ATLANTA 30334-0900
Nathan Deal i
GOVERNOR
January 18, 2011
Mr, Michael J. Bowers Mr. Robert E, Wilson
Balch St Bingham LLP Wilson, Morton & Downs, LLC
Suite 700 Two Decatur TownCenter
3 0 Ivan Allen Jr, Blvd., NW 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 420
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Decatur, Georgia 30030
RE: Investigation of 2009 CRCT Results in Atlanta and Dougherty County Public Schools
Dear Messrs. Bowers and Wilson:
This confirms the continuation of the above investigations under your direction with the
GBI's assistance. Before you refer any information on the investigation to any prosecutorial
authority, I expect you to brief me thereon.
Sincerely,
Nathan Deal
490
Office of Student Achievement
System Name
School Name
% of Classes Flagged_WTR
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
4.0%
APPLING COUNTY
BAXLEY WILDER
0.0%
APPLING COUNTY
FOURTH DISTRI
0.0%
APPLING COUNTY
ALTAMAHA ELEM
0.0%
APPLING COUNTY
APPLING CO PR
0.0%
APPLING COUNTY
APPLING CO EL
0.0%
APPLING COUNTY
APPLING CO Ml
15.4%
ATKINSON COUNTY
ATKINSON HIGH
0.0%
ATKINSON COUNTY
WILLACOOCHEE
0.0%
ATKINSON COUNTY
PEARSON ELEME
1.0%
ATLANTA AREA SCHOOL
ATLANTA AREA
0.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HILLSIDE CONA
0.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
APSCEP PARTNE
0.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NEIGHBORHOOD
0.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CENTENNIAL PL
0.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
RIVERS ELEMEN
0.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LIN ELEMENTAR
0.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SUTTON MIDDLE
0.9%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BRANDON ELEME
1.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SMITH ELEMENT
1.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PRICE MIDDLE
2.2%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HOPE ELEMENTA
2.8%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ATLANTA CHART
3.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MORNINGSIDE E
3.2%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
COR ETTA SCOTT
3.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JACKSON ELEME
3.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
KIPP WEST ATL
3.9%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
THE BEST ACAD
3.9%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
INMAN MIDDLE
4.5%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CHARLES R DRE
5.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
KING MIDDLES
6.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BURGESS PETER
7.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BUNCHE MIDDLE
7.5%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CONTINENTAL C
9.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BROWN MIDDLE
9.3%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
GARDEN HILLS
9.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SYLVAN HILLS
10.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
YOUNG MIDDLE
11.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
KIMBERLY ELEM
11.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LONG MIDDLE S
12.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
IMAGINE WESLE
13.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOLTON ACADEM
15.9%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
THE BRIDGE
16.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
GROVE PARK EL
20.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HERNDON ELEME
20.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WILLIAMS ELEM
20.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PARKSIDE ELEM
21.3%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
TOOMER ELEMEN
21.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MILES ELEMENT
21.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BETHUNE ELEME
23.1%
Page 1 of 37
491
Office of Student Achievement
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
M A JONES ELE
23.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HARPER ARCHER
24.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
UNIVERSITY CO
25.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CLEVELAND ELE
26.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ADAMSVILLE EL
27.8%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HERITAGE ACAD
28.2%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CASCADE ELEME
28.8%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
C W HILL ELEM
29.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BENJAMIN SCA
30.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SLATER ELEMEN
30.3%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
COAN MIDDLE S
31.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CRIM HIGH SCH
33.3%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DOBBS ELEMENT
33.3%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
THOMASVILLE H
39.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
FAIN ELEMENTA
39.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
COOKELEMENTA
40.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
EAST LAKE ELE
42.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BEECHER HILLS
42.6%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BENTEEN ELEME
43.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HUMPHRIES ELE
46.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HUTCHINSON EL
47.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHITE ELEMENT
47.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DEERWOOD ACAD
47.8%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
FINCH ELEMENT
48.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
FICKETT ELEME
51.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
KENNEDY MIDDL
53.2%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
TURNER MIDDLE
54.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WEST MANOR EL
54.9%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOYD ELEMENTA
56.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
D H STANTON E
58.3%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHITEFOORD EL
59.3%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WOODSON ELEME
63.3%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
TOWNS ELEMENT
63.6%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BLALOCK ELEME
66.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PERKERSON ELE
66.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SCOTT ELEMENT
68.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DUNBAR ELEMEN
68.6%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CONNALLY ELEM
70.5%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CAPITOL VIEW
70.8%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
VENETIAN HILL
75.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
USHER ELEMENT
78.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
F L STANTON
83.3%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PEYTON FOREST
86.1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
GIDEONS ELEME
88.4%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PARKS MIDDLE
89.5%
BACON COUNTY
BACON CO MIDD
0.0%
BACON COUNTY
BACON CO PRIM
0.0%
BACON COUNTY
BACON CO ELEM
0.0%
BAKER COUNTY
BAKER COUNTY
11.1%
BALDWIN COUNTY
PROJECT ADVEN
0.0%
BALDWIN COUNTY
OAK HILL MS
0.0%
Page 2 of 37
492
Office of Student Achievement
BALDWIN COUNTY
EAGLE RIDGE E
0.8%
BALDWIN COUNTY
BLANDY HILLS
0.9%
BALDWIN COUNTY
MIDWAY ELEMEN
2.2%
BALDWIN COUNTY
CREEKSIDE ELE
2.6%
BANKS COUNTY
BANKS CO MIDD
0.0%
BANKS COUNTY
BANKS CO ELEM
0.0%
BANKS COUNTY
BANKS CO PRIM
2.8%
BARROW COUNTY
AUBURN ELEMEN
0.0%
BARROW COUNTY
KENNEDY ELEME
0.0%
BARROW COUNTY
HAYMON MORRIS
0.0%
BARROW COUNTY
BRAMLETT ELEM
0.0%
BARROW COUNTY
HOLSENBECKEL
0.0%
BARROW COUNTY
BETHLEHEM ELE
0.9%
BARROW COUNTY
WINDER BARROW
0.9%
BARROW COUNTY
RUSSELL MIDDL
1.0%
BARROW COUNTY
YARGO ELEMENT
1.0%
BARROW COUNTY
STATHAM ELEME
2.0%
BARROW COUNTY
WESTSIDE MIDD
2.9%
BARROW COUNTY
COUNTY LINE E
5.4%
BARTOW COUNTY
PINE LOG ELEM
0.0%
BARTOW COUNTY
EMERSON ELEME
0.0%
BARTOW COUNTY
WHITE ELEMENT
0.0%
BARTOW COUNTY
ALLATOONA ELE
0.0%
BARTOW COUNTY
CLEAR CREEK E
0.0%
BARTOW COUNTY
ADAIRSVILLE M
0.0%
BARTOW COUNTY
CASS MIDDLES
0.0%
BARTOW COUNTY
WOODLAND MIDD
0.8%
BARTOW COUNTY
SOUTH CENTRAL
2.3%
BARTOW COUNTY
HAMILTON CROS
2.6%
BARTOW COUNTY
TAYLORSVILLE
2.9%
BARTOW COUNTY
KINGSTON ELEM
3.8%
BARTOW COUNTY
CLOVERLEAF EL
4.4%
BARTOW COUNTY
EUHARLEE ELEM
6.1%
BARTOW COUNTY
MISSION ROAD
6.3%
BARTOW COUNTY
ADAIRSVILLE E
9.2%
BEN HILL COUNTY
BEN HILL CO M
1.0%
BEN HILL COUNTY
BEN HILL CO E
1.0%
BEN HILL COUNTY
BEN HILL CO P
4.4%
BERRIEN COUNTY
BERRIEN MIDDL
0.0%
BERRIEN COUNTY
BERRIEN ELEME
1.9%
BERRIEN COUNTY
BERRIEN PRIMA
2.5%
BIBB COUNTY
PRICE EDUCATI
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
MACON HEALTH
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
INGRAM PYE EL
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
BERND ELEMENT
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
ROSA TAYLOR E
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
HEARD ELEMENT
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
SPRINGDALE EL
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
SKYVIEW ELEME
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
BLOOMFIELD Ml
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
APPLING MIDDL
0.0%
Page 3 of 37
493
Office of Student Achievement
BIBB COUNTY
MILLER MAGNET
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
WEAVER MIDDLE
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
RUTLAND MIDDL
0.0%
BIBB COUNTY
HOWARD MIDDLE
0.9%
BIBB COUNTY
ALEXANDER II
1.5%
BIBB COUNTY
LANE ELEMENTA
1.6%
BIBB COUNTY
PORTER ELEMEN
1.7%
BIBB COUNTY
MORGAN ELEMEN
1.8%
BIBB COUNTY
HERITAGE ELEM
2.2%
BIBB COUNTY
CARTER ELEMEN
3.2%
BIBB COUNTY
NEW BALLARD H
5.4%
BIBB COUNTY
UNION ELEMENT
5.6%
BIBB COUNTY
RICE ELEMENTA
7.1%
BIBB COUNTY
BURDELL ELEME
7.4%
BIBB COUNTY
BARDEN ELEMEN
7.8%
BIBB COUNTY
VINEVILLE ACA
8.3%
BIBB COUNTY
RILEY ELEMENT
10.4%
BIBB COUNTY
BURGHARD ELEM
12.5%
BIBB COUNTY
HARTLEY ELEME
14.6%
BIBB COUNTY
BRUCE ELEMENT
18.2%
BIBB COUNTY
WILLIAMS ELEM
22.5%
BIBB COUNTY
DANFORTH PRIM
23.1%
BIBB COUNTY
JONES ELEMENT
24.1%
BIBB COUNTY
BROOKDALE ELE
27.1%
BIBB COUNTY
BURKE ELEMENT
40.5%
BLECKLEY COUNTY
BLECKLEY CO P
0.0%
BLECKLEY COUNTY
BLECKLEY CO M
0.0%
BLECKLEY COUNTY
BLECKLEY CO E
0.0%
BLECKLEY COUNTY
MIDDLE GEORGI
16.7%
BRANTLEY COUNTY
BRANTLEY CO M
0.0%
BRANTLEY COUNTY
NAHUNTA ELEME
0.0%
BRANTLEY COUNTY
NAHUNTA PRIMA
0.0%
BRANTLEY COUNTY
HOBOKEN ELEME
2.5%
BRANTLEY COUNTY
WAYNESVILLE E
12.9%
BREMEN CITY
BREMEN ACADE
0.0%
BREMEN CITY
JONES ELEMENT
0.0%
BREMEN CITY
BREMEN MIDDLE
0.0%
BROOKS COUNTY
NORTH BROOKS
0.0%
BROOKS COUNTY
QUITMAN ELEME
0.0%
BROOKS COUNTY
BROOKS CO MID
0.0%
BRYAN COUNTY
RICHMOND MIDD
0.0%
BRYAN COUNTY
BRYAN CO MIDD
0.0%
BRYAN COUNTY
LANIER PRIMAR
0.0%
BRYAN COUNTY
BRYAN CO ELEM
0.0%
BRYAN COUNTY
DR GEORGE WA
0.0%
BRYAN COUNTY
RICHMOND ELEM
0.8%
BRYAN COUNTY
RICHMOND PRIM
3.2%
BUFORD CITY
BUFORD MIDDLE
0.8%
BUFORD CITY
BUFORD ACADEM
2.2%
BULLOCH COUNTY
WILLIAM JAMES
0.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
NEW NEVILS EL
0.0%
Page 4 of 37
494
Office of Student Achievement
BULLOCH COUNTY
STILSON ELEME
0.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
PORTAL MIDDLE
0.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
PORTAL ELEMEN
0.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
MATTIE LIVELY
0.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
SALLIE ZETTER
0.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
BROOKLET ELEM
0.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
SOUTHEAST MID
0.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
MILL CREEK EL
1.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
LANGSTON C EL
1.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
BRYANT ELEMEN
1.0%
BULLOCH COUNTY
LANGSTON CHAP
2.7%
BURKE COUNTY
SG A ELEMENT
1.7%
BURKE COUNTY
BURKE CO MIDD
1.7%
BURKE COUNTY
BLAKENEY ELEM
2.0%
BURKE COUNTY
WAYNESBORO PR
7.2%
BUTTS COUNTY
HAMPTON L DAU
0.0%
BUTTS COUNTY
JACKSON ELEME
0.0%
BUTTS COUNTY
HENDERSON MID
1.0%
BUTTS COUNTY
STARK ELEMENT
4.0%
CALHOUN CITY
CALHOUN ELEME
0.0%
CALHOUN CITY
NEW CALHOUN M
1.0%
CALHOUN CITY
CALHOUN PRIMA
1.1%
CALHOUN COUNTY
CALHOUN CO Ml
4.2%
CALHOUN COUNTY
CALHOUN CO EL
10.4%
CAMDEN COUNTY
WOODBINE ELEM
0.0%
CAMDEN COUNTY
MATILDA HARRI
0.0%
CAMDEN COUNTY
SAINT MARYS E
0.0%
CAMDEN COUNTY
SUGARMILL ELE
0.0%
CAMDEN COUNTY
CROOKED RIVER
0.0%
CAMDEN COUNTY
MARY LEE CLAR
0.0%
CAMDEN COUNTY
CAMDEN MIDDLE
0.5%
CAMDEN COUNTY
NEW SAINT MAR
0.5%
CAMDEN COUNTY
KINGSLAND ELE
2.3%
CAMDEN COUNTY
MAMIE LOU GRO
2.5%
CAMDEN COUNTY
DAVID L RAINE
5.6%
CANDLER COUNTY
METTER INTERM
0.0%
CANDLER COUNTY
METTER ELEMEN
3.0%
CANDLER COUNTY
METTER MIDDLE
4.2%
CARROLL COUNTY
ROOPVILLE ELE
0.0%
CARROLL COUNTY
MTZION MIDDL
0.0%
CARROLL COUNTY
VILLA RICA EL
0.0%
CARROLL COUNTY
TEMPLE MIDDLE
0.0%
CARROLL COUNTY
ITHICA ELEMEN
0.0%
CARROLL COUNTY
BOWDON ELEMEN
0.0%
CARROLL COUNTY
VILLA RICA Ml
0.0%
CARROLL COUNTY
JONESVILLE Ml
0.0%
CARROLL COUNTY
CENTRAL ELEME
0.9%
CARROLL COUNTY
SAND HILL ELE
1.0%
CARROLL COUNTY
CENTRAL MIDDL
1.8%
CARROLL COUNTY
SHARP CREEK E
2.2%
CARROLL COUNTY
MOUNT ZION EL
2.6%
Page 5 of 37
495
Office of Student Achievement
CARROLL COUNTY
GLANTON HINDS
3.6%
CARROLL COUNTY
TEMPLE ELEMEN
4.8%
CARROLL COUNTY
BAY SPRINGS M
8.1%
CARROLL COUNTY
WHITESBURG EL
33.3%
CARROLLTON CITY
CARROLLTON J R
0.0%
CARROLLTON CITY
CARROLLTON EL
1.3%
CARROLLTON CITY
CARROLLTON Ml
1.3%
CARTERSVILLE CITY
CARTERS MIDDL
0.0%
CARTERSVILLE CITY
CARTERS PRIMA
0.0%
CARTERSVILLE CITY
CARTERS ELEME
0.0%
CATOOSA COUNTY
HERITAGE MIDD
0.0%
CATOOSA COUNTY
LAKEVIEW MIDD
0.0%
CATOOSA COUNTY
WEST SIDE ELE
0.0%
CATOOSA COUNTY
GRAYSVILLE EL
0.0%
CATOOSA COUNTY
TIGER CREEK E
0.0%
CATOOSA COUNTY
BOYNTON ELEME
0.0%
CATOOSA COUNTY
RINGGOLD MIDD
0.0%
CATOOSA COUNTY
RINGGOLD ELEM
1.4%
CATOOSA COUNTY
BATTLEFIELD E
1.7%
CATOOSA COUNTY
RINGGOLD PRIM
1.9%
CATOOSA COUNTY
BATTLEFIELD P
2.1%
CATOOSA COUNTY
WOODSTATION E
3.7%
CATOOSA COUNTY
CLOUD SPRINGS
7.2%
CCAT
CCATSCHOOLSL
0.0%
CHARLTON COUNTY
CHARLTON COUN
0.0%
CHARLTON COUNTY
ST GEORGE EL
0.0%
CHARLTON COUNTY
BETHUNE ELEME
0.0%
CHARLTON COUNTY
FOLKSTON ELEM
2.5%
CHATHAM COUNTY
UHS OF SAVANN
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
OGLETHORPE CH
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
POOLER ELEMEN
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
JACOB G SMIT
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
HAVEN ELEMENT
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
WINDSOR FOR E
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
BLOOMINGDALE
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
HUBERT MIDDLE
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
ISLE OF HOPE
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
WHITE BLUFF E
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
LARGO TIBET E
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
PORT WENTWORT
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
BARTLETTMIDD
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
SHUMAN MIDDLE
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
DERENNE MIDDL
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
ELLIS ELEMENT
0.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
SOUTHWEST MID
0.6%
CHATHAM COUNTY
MERCER MIDDLE
0.6%
CHATHAM COUNTY
COASTAL MIDDL
0.7%
CHATHAM COUNTY
W CHATHAM MID
0.7%
CHATHAM COUNTY
MARSHPOINT EL
0.9%
CHATHAM COUNTY
GEORGETOWN EL
1.0%
CHATHAM COUNTY
GARDEN CITY E
1.0%
Page 6 of 37
496
Office of Student Achievement
CHATHAM COUNTY
HOWARD ELEMEN
1.2%
CHATHAM COUNTY
HESSE ELEMENT
1.4%
CHATHAM COUNTY
HEARD ELEMENT
2.2%
CHATHAM COUNTY
W CHATHAM ELE
2.6%
CHATHAM COUNTY
SOUTHWEST ELE
2.8%
CHATHAM COUNTY
MYERS MIDDLE
2.9%
CHATHAM COUNTY
EAST BROAD ST
4.1%
CHATHAM COUNTY
LOWELEMENTAR
4.3%
CHATHAM COUNTY
ISLANDS ELEME
4.9%
CHATHAM COUNTY
SPENCER ELEME
5.3%
CHATHAM COUNTY
PULASKI ELEME
5.6%
CHATHAM COUNTY
BUTLER ELEMEN
5.7%
CHATHAM COUNTY
GOULD ELEMENT
6.7%
CHATHAM COUNTY
THUNDERBOLT E
7.6%
CHATHAM COUNTY
GADSDEN ELEME
7.8%
CHATHAM COUNTY
BARTOW ELEMEN
9.3%
CHATHAM COUNTY
GARRISON ELEM
9.7%
CHATHAM COUNTY
HODGE ELEMENT
15.9%
CHATTAHOOCHEE COUNTY
CHATTAHOO C M
0.0%
CHATTAHOOCHEE COUNTY
CHATTAHOO EDU
15.4%
CHATTOOGA COUNTY
CROSSROADS AL
0.0%
CHATTOOGA COUNTY
SUMMERVILLE M
0.0%
CHATTOOGA COUNTY
LYERLY ELEMEN
0.0%
CHATTOOGA COUNTY
LEROY MASSEY
1.3%
CHATTOOGA COUNTY
MENLO ELEMENT
1.8%
CHATTOOGA COUNTY
SUMMERVILLE E
1.9%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
FREEDOM MIDDL
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
CREEKLAND MID
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
BALL GROUND E
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
OAK GROVE ELE
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
WILLIAM G HA
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
RUSK MIDDLE S
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
MACEDONIA ELE
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
JOHNSTON ELEM
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
HICKORY FLAT
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
AVERY ELEMENT
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
TEASLEY MIDDL
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
BOOTH MIDDLE
0.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
WOODSTOCK MID
0.5%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
LIBERTY ELEME
0.6%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
BASCOMB ELEME
0.7%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
SIXES ELEMENT
0.8%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
J KNOX ELEME
1.0%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
CHAPMAN INTER
1.2%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
R M MOORE ELE
1.4%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
BOSTON ELEMEN
1.8%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
LITTLE RIVER
1.8%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
CARMEL ELEMEN
1.9%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
HOLLY SPRINGS
2.2%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
CANTON ELEMEN
2.7%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
FREE HOME ELE
2.8%
Page 7 of 37
497
Office of Student Achievement
CHEROKEE COUNTY
CLAYTON ELEME
3.3%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
MOUNTAIN ROAD
3.4%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
WOODSTOCK ELE
3.5%
CHEROKEE COUNTY
ARNOLD MILL E
4.8%
CHICKAMAUGA CITY
GORDON LEE Ml
0.0%
CHICKAMAUGA CITY
CHICKAMAUGA E
1.4%
CLARKE COUNTY
HILSMAN MIDDL
0.0%
CLARKE COUNTY
CLARKE MIDDLE
0.0%
CLARKE COUNTY
TIMOTHY ELEME
0.0%
CLARKE COUNTY
WHITEHEAD ROA
0.0%
CLARKE COUNTY
WINTERVILLE E
0.0%
CLARKE COUNTY
BARN ETT SHOAL
0.0%
CLARKE COUNTY
CLEVELAND ROA
2.2%
CLARKE COUNTY
BARROW ELEMEN
2.2%
CLARKE COUNTY
OGLETHORPE AV
2.7%
CLARKE COUNTY
ALPS ROAD ELE
3.7%
CLARKE COUNTY
FOURTH STREET
3.9%
CLARKE COUNTY
CHASE STREET
4.2%
CLARKE COUNTY
FOWLER DRIVE
4.2%
CLARKE COUNTY
WHIT DAVIS RO
5.1%
CLARKE COUNTY
BURNEY HARRIS
5.6%
CLARKE COUNTY
GAINES ELEMEN
7.7%
CLARKE COUNTY
COILE MIDDLE
16.7%
CLAY COUNTY
CLAY COUNTY E
5.6%
CLAY COUNTY
CLAY COUNTY M
8.3%
CLAYTON COUNTY
UNIDOS DUAL L
0.0%
CLAYTON COUNTY
ANDERSON ELEM
0.0%
CLAYTON COUNTY
EDMONDS ELEME
0.0%
CLAYTON COUNTY
ROBERTA T SM
0.8%
CLAYTON COUNTY
KILPATRICK EL
1.3%
CLAYTON COUNTY
MORROW ELEMEN
1.3%
CLAYTON COUNTY
M D ROBERTS M
1.3%
CLAYTON COUNTY
ARNOLD ELEMEN
1.5%
CLAYTON COUNTY
POINTE SOUTH
1.6%
CLAYTON COUNTY
MOUNT ZION EL
2.4%
CLAYTON COUNTY
WILLIAM M MC
2.5%
CLAYTON COUNTY
SWINT ELEMENT
2.5%
CLAYTON COUNTY
MUNDYS MIDDL
2.6%
CLAYTON COUNTY
MORROW MIDDLE
2.8%
CLAYTON COUNTY
TARA ELEMENTA
2.9%
CLAYTON COUNTY
BABB MIDDLE S
3.0%
CLAYTON COUNTY
JAMES JACKSON
3.6%
CLAYTON COUNTY
EAST CLAYTON
3.7%
CLAYTON COUNTY
LOVEJOY MIDDL
3.9%
CLAYTON COUNTY
ADAMSON MIDDL
4.2%
CLAYTON COUNTY
JONESBORO MID
4.3%
CLAYTON COUNTY
HENDRIX DRIVE
4.8%
CLAYTON COUNTY
KENDRICK MIDD
4.8%
CLAYTON COUNTY
REX MILL MIDD
4.8%
CLAYTON COUNTY
HUIE ELEMENTA
4.9%
CLAYTON COUNTY
SEQUOYAH MIDD
5.6%
Page 8 of 37
498
Office of Student Achievement
CLAYTON COUNTY
RIVERDALE MID
5.7%
CLAYTON COUNTY
HAWTHORNE ELE
5.8%
CLAYTON COUNTY
HARPER ELEMEN
6.1%
CLAYTON COUNTY
FOREST PARK M
6.3%
CLAYTON COUNTY
CALLAWAY ELEM
6.8%
CLAYTON COUNTY
SUDER ELEMENT
7.2%
CLAYTON COUNTY
LAKE CITY ELE
7.2%
CLAYTON COUNTY
RIVERDALE ELE
7.3%
CLAYTON COUNTY
KEMP ELEM SCH
7.3%
CLAYTON COUNTY
WEST CLAYTON
7.9%
CLAYTON COUNTY
KEMP PRIMARY
8.6%
CLAYTON COUNTY
LEE STREET EL
8.6%
CLAYTON COUNTY
RIVERS EDGE
9.2%
CLAYTON COUNTY
HAYNIE ELEMEN
10.0%
CLAYTON COUNTY
BROWN ELEMENT
10.1%
CLAYTON COUNTY
FOUNTAIN ELEM
10.7%
CLAYTON COUNTY
MOUNT ZION PR
11.7%
CLAYTON COUNTY
CHURCH STREET
11.7%
CLAYTON COUNTY
POINTE ELEMEN
11.8%
CLAYTON COUNTY
THURGOOD MARS
17.9%
CLAYTON COUNTY
NORTHCUTT ELE
19.8%
CLAYTON COUNTY
MARTIN LUTHER
20.0%
CLAYTON COUNTY
LAKE RIDGE EL
21.6%
CLAYTON COUNTY
OLIVER ELEMEN
23.1%
CLAYTON COUNTY
NORTH CLAYTON
26.3%
CLAYTON COUNTY
LEWIS ACADEMY
56.9%
CLINCH COUNTY
CLINCH CO HIG
0.0%
CLINCH COUNTY
FARGO CHARTER
0.0%
CLINCH COUNTY
CLINCH CO PRI
0.0%
CLINCH COUNTY
CLINCH CO ELE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
DICKERSON MID
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
DURHAM MIDDLE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
COOPER MIDDLE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
LOVINGGOOD Ml
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
DANIELL MIDDL
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
MCCLESKEYMID
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
HIGHTOWERTRA
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
LOST MOUNTAIN
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
PALMER MIDDLE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
MABRY MIDDLE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
DODGEN MIDDLE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
PINE MOUNTAIN
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
SMITHA MIDDLE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
EAST COBB MID
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
AWTREY MIDDLE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
BARBER MIDDLE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
CAMPBELL MIDD
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
DEVEREUX ACKE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
GRIFFIN MIDDL
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
MCCLURE MIDDL
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
MCCALL PRIMAR
0.0%
Page 9 of 37
499
Office of Student Achievement
COBB COUNTY
GARRETT MIDDL
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
IMAGINE INT A
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
CLARKDALE ELE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
TIMBER RIDGE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
KEHELEY ELEME
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
NICHOLSON ELE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
EASTVALLEY EL
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
ROCKY MOUNT E
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
STILL ELEMENT
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
GARRISON MILL
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
KENNESAWELEM
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
TRITT ELEMENT
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
FORD ELEMENTA
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
VARNER ELEMEN
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
MOUNT BETHEL
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
FAIR OAKS ELE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
EAST SIDE ELE
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
NORTON PARK E
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
PITNER ELEMEN
0.0%
COBB COUNTY
LEWIS ELEMENT
0.7%
COBB COUNTY
KEMP ELEMENTA
0.8%
COBB COUNTY
POWDER SPRING
0.8%
COBB COUNTY
VAUGHAN ELEME
0.8%
COBB COUNTY
BIG SHANTY EL
0.9%
COBB COUNTY
CHALKER ELEME
0.9%
COBB COUNTY
MOUNTAIN VIEW
0.9%
COBB COUNTY
KINCAID ELEME
1.0%
COBB COUNTY
CLAY ELEMENTA
1.0%
COBB COUNTY
BELLS FERRY E
1.1%
COBB COUNTY
DOWELL ELEMEN
1.3%
COBB COUNTY
FREY ELEMENTA
1.3%
COBB COUNTY
DAVIS ELEMENT
1.4%
COBB COUNTY
POWERS FERRY
1.4%
COBB COUNTY
DUE WEST ELEM
1.4%
COBB COUNTY
BRUMBY ELEMEN
1.4%
COBB COUNTY
BULLARD ELEME
1.4%
COBB COUNTY
SKY VIEW ELEM
1.4%
COBB COUNTY
TEASLEY ELEME
1.4%
COBB COUNTY
MURDOCK ELEME
1.8%
COBB COUNTY
ACWORTH INTER
1.8%
COBB COUNTY
BELMONT HILLS
1.9%
COBB COUNTY
MILFORD ELEME
1.9%
COBB COUNTY
SEDALIA PARK
1.9%
COBB COUNTY
BLACKWELL ELE
2.0%
COBB COUNTY
HOLLYDALE ELE
2.2%
COBB COUNTY
SOPE CREEK EL
2.3%
COBB COUNTY
BROWN ELEMENT
2.4%
COBB COUNTY
NICKAJACK ELE
2.4%
COBB COUNTY
GREEN ACRES E
2.4%
COBB COUNTY
SANDERS ELEME
2.6%
COBB COUNTY
AUSTELL PRIMA
2.8%
Page 10 of 37
500
Office of Student Achievement
COBB COUNTY
AUSTELL INTER
2.8%
COBB COUNTY
BIRNEY ELEMEN
2.8%
COBB COUNTY
MABLETON ELEM
2.9%
COBB COUNTY
PICKETT SMIL
2.9%
COBB COUNTY
RUSSELL ELEME
2.9%
COBB COUNTY
SHALLOWFORD F
3.0%
COBB COUNTY
KENNESAWCHAR
3.3%
COBB COUNTY
ADDISON ELEME
3.3%
COBB COUNTY
COMPTON ELEME
3.3%
COBB COUNTY
LABELLE ELEME
3.4%
COBB COUNTY
BAKER ELEMENT
3.5%
COBB COUNTY
RIVERSIDE INT
3.5%
COBB COUNTY
ARGYLE ELEMEN
3.8%
COBB COUNTY
CHEATHAM HILL
3.8%
COBB COUNTY
KING SPRINGS
4.2%
COBB COUNTY
HAYES ELEMENT
4.4%
COBB COUNTY
BRYANT ELEMEN
4.7%
COBB COUNTY
LINDLEY MIDDL
4.8%
COBB COUNTY
TAPP MIDDLES
5.6%
COBB COUNTY
FLOYD MIDDLE
6.7%
COBB COUNTY
HARMONY LELAN
7.2%
COBB COUNTY
SIMPSON MIDDL
8.3%
COBB COUNTY
IMAGINE INTER
8.3%
COBB COUNTY
LINDLEY ACADE
16.7%
COBB COUNTY
RIVERSIDE PRI
18.2%
COFFEE COUNTY
BROXTON MARY
0.0%
COFFEE COUNTY
WEST GREEN EL
0.0%
COFFEE COUNTY
COFFEE MIDDLE
0.0%
COFFEE COUNTY
SATILLA ELEME
0.0%
COFFEE COUNTY
EASTSIDE ELEM
0.0%
COFFEE COUNTY
WESTSIDE ELEM
1.1%
COFFEE COUNTY
AMBROSE ELEME
2.0%
COFFEE COUNTY
INDIAN CREEK
2.6%
COFFEE COUNTY
NICHOLLS ELEM
7.4%
COLQUITT COUNTY
DOERUN ELEMEN
0.0%
COLQUITT COUNTY
HAMILTON ELEM
0.0%
COLQUITT COUNTY
WILLIE J WIL
0.0%
COLQUITT COUNTY
OKAPILCO ELEM
0.0%
COLQUITT COUNTY
WRIGHT ELEMEN
0.0%
COLQUITT COUNTY
FUNSTON ELEME
0.0%
COLQUITT COUNTY
NORMAN PARK E
0.0%
COLQUITT COUNTY
ODOM ELEMENTA
0.0%
COLQUITT COUNTY
SUNSET ELEMEN
0.0%
COLQUITT COUNTY
COX ELEMENTAR
1.5%
COLQUITT COUNTY
GRAY MIDDLE S
1.6%
COLQUITT COUNTY
STRINGFELLOW
8.3%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
COLUMBIA MIDD
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
HARLEM MIDDLE
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
EUCHEE CREEK
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
NORTH COLUMBI
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
EVANS ELEMENT
0.0%
Page 1 1 of 37
501
Office of Student Achievement
COLUMBIA COUNTY
BEL AIR ELEME
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
STALLINGS ISL
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
MARTINEZ ELEM
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
BROOKWOOD ELE
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
BLUE RIDGE EL
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
RIVERSIDE MID
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
NORTH HARLEM
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
RIVER RIDGE E
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
RIVERSIDE ELE
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
GROVETOWN ELE
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
STEVENS CREEK
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
LEWISTON ELEM
0.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
EVANS MIDD SC
0.8%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
CEDAR RIDGE E
1.0%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
GREENBRIER EL
1.2%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
WESTMONT ELEM
1.3%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
SOUTH COLUMBI
1.4%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
GROVETOWN MID
1.7%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
GREENBRIER Ml
1.7%
COLUMBIA COUNTY
LAKESIDE MIDD
2.8%
COMMERCE CITY
COMMERCE ELEM
0.0%
COMMERCE CITY
COMMERCE PRIM
0.0%
COMMERCE CITY
COMMERCE MIDD
1.0%
COOK COUNTY
COOKELEMENTA
0.0%
COOK COUNTY
COOK PRIMARY
1.2%
COOK COUNTY
COOK COUNTY M
3.9%
COWETA COUNTY
GRANTVILLE EL
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
JEFFERSON PAR
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
MORELAND ELEM
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
ATKINSON ELEM
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
THOMAS CROSSR
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
RUTH HILL ELE
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
NORTHSIDE ELE
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
EASTSIDE ELEM
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
ELM STREET EL
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
NEWNAN CROSSI
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
CANNONGATE EL
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
ARNALL MIDDLE
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
MADRAS MIDDLE
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
LEE MIDDLE SC
0.0%
COWETA COUNTY
SMOKEY ROAD M
0.6%
COWETA COUNTY
WELCH ELEMENT
0.9%
COWETA COUNTY
EVANS MIDDLE
1.0%
COWETA COUNTY
WILLIS ROAD E
1.0%
COWETA COUNTY
EAST COWETA M
1.0%
COWETA COUNTY
POPLAR ROAD E
1.1%
COWETA COUNTY
WHITE OAK ELE
1.1%
COWETA COUNTY
ARBOR SPRINGS
1.2%
COWETA COUNTY
ARNCO SARGENT
1.5%
COWETA COUNTY
WESTERN ELEME
1.6%
CRAWFORD COUNTY
CRAWFORD CO M
0.0%
Page 12 of 37
502
Office of Student Achievement
CRAWFORD COUNTY
CRAWFORD CO E
4.0%
CRISP COUNTY
CRISP CO MIDD
0.0%
CRISP COUNTY
J S PATE ELEM
0.0%
CRISP COUNTY
SOUTHWESTERN
0.0%
CRISP COUNTY
AS CLARK ELE
1.4%
CRISP COUNTY
BLACKSHEAR TR
3.9%
DADE COUNTY
DADE MIDDLE S
0.0%
DADE COUNTY
DAVIS ELEMENT
0.0%
DADE COUNTY
DADE ELEMENTA
0.0%
DALTON CITY
ROAN ELEMENTA
0.0%
DALTON CITY
BLUE RIDGE SC
0.0%
DALTON CITY
CITY PARK SCH
2.9%
DALTON CITY
PARK CREEK EL
3.8%
DALTON CITY
WESTWOOD ELEM
4.5%
DALTON CITY
DALTON MIDDLE
5.1%
DALTON CITY
BROOKWOOD ELE
6.9%
DAWSON COUNTY
RIVERVIEWMID
0.0%
DAWSON COUNTY
BLACKS MILL
0.0%
DAWSON COUNTY
NEW DAWSON CO
0.0%
DAWSON COUNTY
ROBINSON ELEM
0.0%
DAWSON COUNTY
KILOUGH ELEME
1.5%
DECATUR CITY
WINNONA PARK
0.0%
DECATUR CITY
CLAIREMONT EL
0.0%
DECATUR CITY
OAKHURST ELEM
3.7%
DECATUR CITY
RENFROE MIDDL
4.2%
DECATUR CITY
GLENN WOOD ACA
5.3%
DECATUR COUNTY
LILLIAN E WIL
0.0%
DECATUR COUNTY
POTTER STREET
0.0%
DECATUR COUNTY
W BAINBRID EL
0.0%
DECATUR COUNTY
JOHN JOHNSON
0.0%
DECATUR COUNTY
JONES WHEAT E
0.0%
DECATUR COUNTY
W BAINBRID Ml
0.0%
DECATUR COUNTY
ELCAN KING EL
1.1%
DECATUR COUNTY
HUTTO MIDDLE
2.9%
DEKALB COUNTY
PEACHTREE MID
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
DEKALB SCHOOLSL
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
DEKALB ALT SC
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
KITTREDGE MAG
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
UHSOF LAUREL
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
WADSWORTH MAG
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
ASHFORD PARK
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
LIVSEYELEMEN
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
GRESHAM PARK
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
MIDVALE ELEME
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
BRIARLAKE ELE
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
SAGAMORE HILL
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
EVANSDALE ELE
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
KINGSLEYELEM
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
HENDERSON MIL
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
SMOKE RISE EL
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
CHESNUT ELEME
0.0%
Page 13 of 37
503
Office of Student Achievement
DEKALB COUNTY
CHAPEL HILL M
0.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
SHAMROCK Ml DD
0.7%
DEKALB COUNTY
VANDERLYN ELE
0.9%
DEKALB COUNTY
NARVIE HARRIS
0.9%
DEKALB COUNTY
WYNBROOKE ELE
1.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
IDLEWOOD ELEM
1.1%
DEKALB COUNTY
CHAMBLEE MIDD
1.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
SEQUOYAH MIDD
1.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
HIGHTOWER ELE
1.6%
DEKALB COUNTY
PRINCETON ELE
1.6%
DEKALB COUNTY
ROBERT SHAW T
1.7%
DEKALB COUNTY
MONTGOMERY EL
1.9%
DEKALB COUNTY
BRIAR VISTA E
1.9%
DEKALB COUNTY
HAWTHORNE ELE
2.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
OAK GROVE ELE
2.2%
DEKALB COUNTY
KELLEY LAKE E
2.4%
DEKALB COUNTY
MONTCLAIR ELE
2.5%
DEKALB COUNTY
HUNTLEY HILLS
2.5%
DEKALB COUNTY
STONE MILL EL
2.6%
DEKALB COUNTY
ROCK CHAPEL E
2.6%
DEKALB COUNTY
REDAN MIDDLE
2.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
FERNBANK ELEM
2.9%
DEKALB COUNTY
MCLENDON ELEM
2.9%
DEKALB COUNTY
MURPHY CANDLE
3.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
EDWARD L BOU
3.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
OAKVIEW ELEME
3.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
HOOPER ALEXAN
3.2%
DEKALB COUNTY
AUSTIN ELEMEN
3.2%
DEKALB COUNTY
LITHONIA MIDD
3.2%
DEKALB COUNTY
CARY REYNOLDS
3.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
BROCKETT ELEM
3.5%
DEKALB COUNTY
LAUREL RIDGE
3.5%
DEKALB COUNTY
SALEM MIDDLE
3.7%
DEKALB COUNTY
MARY MCLEOD B
3.7%
DEKALB COUNTY
HENDERSON MID
3.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
AVONDALE MIDD
3.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
PLEASANTDALE
3.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
TUCKER MIDDLE
4.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
MILLER GROVE
4.1%
DEKALB COUNTY
STEPHENSON Ml
4.4%
DEKALB COUNTY
SKY HAVEN ELE
4.4%
DEKALB COUNTY
DEKALB ACADEM
4.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
MIDWAY ELEMEN
4.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
MEDLOCK ELEME
5.1%
DEKALB COUNTY
COLUMBIA MIDD
5.1%
DEKALB COUNTY
BOB MATH IS EL
5.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
DEKALB TRANSI
5.6%
DEKALB COUNTY
CHAPEL HILL E
5.6%
DEKALB COUNTY
MARBUT ELEMEN
6.5%
DEKALB COUNTY
DRESDEN ELEME
6.7%
DEKALB COUNTY
THE CHAMPION
6.9%
Page 14 of 37
504
Office of Student Achievement
DEKALB COUNTY
FAIRINGTON EL
7.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
CLIFTON ELEME
7.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
PANOLA WAY EL
7.1%
DEKALB COUNTY
INTLCOMM SCH
7.4%
DEKALB COUNTY
WOODWARD ELEM
7.4%
DEKALB COUNTY
ROCKBRIDGE EL
7.6%
DEKALB COUNTY
AVONDALE ELEM
7.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
ELDRIDGE LM
7.9%
DEKALB COUNTY
RONALD E MCNA
8.1%
DEKALB COUNTY
DEKALB ROCKDA
8.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
ALLGOOD ELEME
8.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
PINE RIDGE EL
8.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
FLAT ROCK ELE
8.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
MCNAIR MIDDLE
8.5%
DEKALB COUNTY
BROWNS MILL E
8.6%
DEKALB COUNTY
ROWLAND ELEME
8.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
COLUMBIA ELEM
9.7%
DEKALB COUNTY
OAKCLIFF ELEM
10.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
PEACHCREST EL
10.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
TONEY ELEMENT
11.1%
DEKALB COUNTY
CANBY LANE EL
11.1%
DEKALB COUNTY
JOLLY ELEMENT
12.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
STONE MOUNT E
12.7%
DEKALB COUNTY
REDAN ELEMENT
13.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
DUNAIRE ELEME
14.1%
DEKALB COUNTY
ACADEMY OF LI
14.4%
DEKALB COUNTY
FLAT SHOALS
17.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
CEDAR GROVE E
17.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
INDIAN CREEK
17.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
HAMBRICK ELEM
17.9%
DEKALB COUNTY
MEADOWVIEW EL
19.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
ATHERTON ELEM
20.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
SNAPFINGER EL
20.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
FREEDOM MIDDL
20.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
WOODRIDGE ELE
20.8%
DEKALB COUNTY
STONE MOUNTAI
21.2%
DEKALB COUNTY
RAINBOW ELEME
21.7%
DEKALB COUNTY
KNOLLWOOD ELE
22.2%
DEKALB COUNTY
INTERNATIONAL
23.3%
DEKALB COUNTY
DEKALB PATH A
25.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
CEDAR GROVE M
35.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
SHADOW ROCK E
40.0%
DEKALB COUNTY
GLEN HAVEN EL
44.9%
DEKALB COUNTY
STONEVIEW ELE
48.1%
DEKALB COUNTY
DEKALB TRUANC
66.7%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
EASTMAN YOUTH
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
GAINESVILLE R
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
SUMTER YOUTH
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
SAVANNAH RIVE
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
GRIFFIN REGIO
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
GWINNITT REGI
0.0%
Page 15 of 37
505
Office of Student Achievement
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
MARIETTA REGI
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
MUSCOGEE YOUT
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
BILL E IRELAN
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
AUGUSTA REGIO
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
CLAYTON REGIO
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
CLAXTON REGIO
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
DALTON REGION
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
DEKALB REGION
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
EASTMAN REGIO
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
WAYCROSS REGI
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
SAVANNAH REGI
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
BLAKELY REGIO
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
BOB RICHARDS
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
AUGUSTA YOUTH
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
PAULDING REGI
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
AARON COHN RE
0.0%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
MACON YOUTH D
5.6%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
CRISP YDC
5.9%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
TJ LOFTISS 1
9.1%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
ALBANY REGION
11.1%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
MACON REGIONA
11.1%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
METRO REGIONA
22.2%
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENI
SANDERSVILLE
25.0%
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WARMS SPRING
0.0%
DHR APPALACHIAN
DHR OUTDOOR A
0.0%
DODGE COUNTY
DODGE CO MIDD
0.0%
DODGE COUNTY
SOUTH DODGE E
3.3%
DODGE COUNTY
NORTH DODGE E
7.2%
DOOLY COUNTY
DOOLY CO ELEM
0.0%
DOOLY COUNTY
DOOLY CO MIDD
6.7%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
ROBERT A CRO
1.5%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
INTERNATIONAL
3.5%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
LAKE PARK ELE
5.3%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
LIVE OAK ELEM
5.8%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
DOUGHERTY MID
6.3%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
MERRY ACRES M
7.4%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
RADIUM SPR Ml
8.3%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
SOUTHSIDE MID
9.7%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
ALBANY MIDDLE
13.1%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
LINCOLN ELEME
14.3%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
MAGNOLIA ELEM
18.2%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
RADIUM SPRING
21.4%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
SYLVESTER ROA
22.2%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
LAMAR REESE S
22.7%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
SHERWOOD ACRE
25.0%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
MORNINGSIDE E
31.6%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
ALICE COACHMA
31.7%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
TURNER ELEMEN
39.4%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
MARTIN LUTHER
45.6%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
NORTHSIDE ELE
52.2%
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
NEW JACKSON H
57.9%
Page 16 of 37
506
Office of Student Achievement
DOUGHERTY COUNTY
WEST TOWN ELE
77.2%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
INNER HARBOUR
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
FAIRPLAY MIDD
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
BURNETT ELEME
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
BEULAH ELEMEN
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
DORSETT SHOAL
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
ANNETTE WINN
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
MOUNT CARMEL
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
SOUTH DOUGLAS
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
BRIGHT STAR E
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
FACTORY SHOAL
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
FACTORY SHLM
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
SWEETWATER EL
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
CHAPEL HILL E
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
YEAGER MIDDLE
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
BILLARP ELEM
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
CHESTNUT LOG
0.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
MIRROR LAKE E
1.0%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
ARBOR STATION
1.1%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
HOLLY SPRINGS
1.2%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
LITHIA SPRING
1.3%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
WINSTON ELEME
1.9%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
BRIGHTEN ACAD
2.1%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
EASTSIDE ELEM
2.2%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
NEW MANCHESTE
2.3%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
NORTH DOUGLAS
3.2%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
CHAPEL HILL M
3.3%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
TURNER MIDDLE
3.3%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
STEWART MIDDL
3.9%
DUBLIN CITY
COMMUNITY HOP
0.0%
DUBLIN CITY
MOORE STREET
0.0%
DUBLIN CITY
SAXON HEIGHTS
1.3%
DUBLIN CITY
DUBLIN MIDDLE
2.0%
DUBLIN CITY
SUSIE DASHER
16.7%
EARLY COUNTY
EARLY CO ELEM
2.0%
EARLY COUNTY
EARLY CO MIDD
2.4%
ECHOLS COUNTY
ECHOLS CO HIG
0.0%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
SAND HILL ELE
0.0%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
BLANDFORD ELE
0.0%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
EFFINGHAM CO
0.0%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
RINCON ELEMEN
0.0%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
EBENEZER ELEM
0.0%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
MARLOW ELEMEN
0.0%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
S EFFINGHAM M
0.0%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
EBENEZER MIDD
0.0%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
SPRINGFIELD E
0.9%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
GUYTON ELEMEN
1.1%
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
S EFFINGHAM E
2.5%
ELBERT COUNTY
BOWMAN ELEMEN
0.0%
ELBERT COUNTY
BLACKWELL ELE
0.0%
ELBERT COUNTY
FALLING CREEK
0.0%
Page 17 of 37
507
Office of Student Achievement
ELBERT COUNTY
DOVES CREEK E
0.0%
ELBERT COUNTY
BEAVERDAM ELE
0.0%
ELBERT COUNTY
ELBERT CO MID
2.2%
EMANUEL COUNTY
SWAINSBORO Ml
0.7%
EMANUEL COUNTY
SWAINSBORO EL
0.8%
EMANUEL COUNTY
SWAINSBORO PR
2.8%
EMANUEL COUNTY
EMANUEL CO IN
3.9%
EMANUEL COUNTY
ADRIAN SCHOOLSL
5.1%
EMANUEL COUNTY
TWIN CITY ELE
6.9%
EVANS COUNTY
CLAXTON ELE ME
5.1%
EVANS COUNTY
CLAXTON MIDDL
6.0%
FANNIN COUNTY
FANNIN CO MID
0.0%
FANNIN COUNTY
WEST FANNIN E
0.0%
FANNIN COUNTY
BLUE RIDGE EL
3.2%
FANNIN COUNTY
EAST FANNIN E
3.6%
FAYETTE COUNTY
BENNETTS MIL
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
TYRONE ELEMEN
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
HOOD AVENUE P
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
FAYETTE MIDDL
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
WHITEWATER Ml
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
PEACHTREE CIT
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
FLAT ROCK MID
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
BROOKS ELEMEN
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
OAK GROVE ELE
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
FAYETTEVILLE
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
CRABAPPLE LAN
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
INMAN ELEMENT
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
BRAELINN ELEM
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
HUDDLESTON EL
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
SARA HARP MIN
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
ROBERT J BUR
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
BOOTH MIDDLE
0.0%
FAYETTE COUNTY
CLEVELAND ELE
1.3%
FAYETTE COUNTY
KEDRON ELEMEN
1.3%
FAYETTE COUNTY
NORTH FAYETTE
1.6%
FAYETTE COUNTY
PEEPLESELEME
2.1%
FAYETTE COUNTY
SPRING HILL E
2.8%
FAYETTE COUNTY
RISING STARR
3.2%
FLOYD COUNTY
PEPPERELL ELE
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
MODEL MIDDLE
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
ARMUCHEE MIDD
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
COOSA MIDDLE
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
PEPPERELL MID
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
MIDWAY PRIMAR
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
MCHENRY PRIMA
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
GLENWOOD PRIM
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
CAVE SPRING E
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
ALTO PARK ELE
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
PEPPERELL PRI
0.0%
FLOYD COUNTY
ARMUCHEE ELEM
1.3%
FLOYD COUNTY
JOHNSON ELEME
1.4%
Page 18 of 37
508
Office of Student Achievement
FLOYD COUNTY
MODEL ELEMENT
2.3%
FLOYD COUNTY
GARDEN LAKES
4.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
RIVERWATCH Ml
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
VICKERY CREEK
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
LIBERTY MIDDL
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
PINEY GROVE M
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
NORTH FORSYTH
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
OTWELL MIDDLE
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
MIDWAY ELEMEN
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
COAL MOUNTAIN
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
MATTELEMENTA
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
SILVER CITY E
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
CUMMING ELEME
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
SAWNEE ELEMEN
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
LITTLE MILL M
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
S FORSYTH M
0.0%
FORSYTH COUNTY
DAVES CREEK E
0.8%
FORSYTH COUNTY
JOHNS CREEK E
0.8%
FORSYTH COUNTY
CHESTATEE ELE
0.8%
FORSYTH COUNTY
BIG CREEK ELE
0.9%
FORSYTH COUNTY
CHATTAHOO ELE
0.9%
FORSYTH COUNTY
MASHBURN ELEM
1.1%
FORSYTH COUNTY
VICKERY CRK E
1.1%
FORSYTH COUNTY
SHILOH POINT
1.3%
FORSYTH COUNTY
SETTLES BRIDG
1.6%
FORSYTH COUNTY
SHARON ELEMEN
3.0%
FRANKLIN COUNTY
ROYSTON ELEME
0.0%
FRANKLIN COUNTY
CARNESVILLE E
0.0%
FRANKLIN COUNTY
LAVONIA ELEME
0.0%
FRANKLIN COUNTY
FRANKLIN CO M
0.0%
FRANKLIN COUNTY
CENTRAL FRANK
1.6%
FULTON COUNTY
FULTON SCIENC
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
RIVER TRAIL M
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
HOPEWELL MIDD
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
TAYLOR ROAD M
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
HAYNES BRIDGE
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
MEDLOCK BRIDG
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
SANDY SPRINGS
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
RIDGEVIEW CHA
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
ELKINS POINTE
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
GEORGIA BAPTI
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
NORTHWESTERN
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
HOLCOMB BRIDG
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
AMANA ACADEMY
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
LAKE FOREST E
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
ALPHARETTA EL
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
STATE BRIDGE
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
HEMBREESPRIN
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
JACKSON ELEME
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
CRABAPPLE CRO
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
FINDLEY OAKS
0.0%
Page 19 of 37
509
Office of Student Achievement
FULTON COUNTY
OCEE ELEMENTA
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
WILSON CREEK
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
CREEK VIEW EL
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
DOLVIN ELEMEN
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
SUMMIT HILL E
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
MCNAIR MIDDLE
0.0%
FULTON COUNTY
WEBB BRIDGE M
0.5%
FULTON COUNTY
SWEET APPLE E
0.7%
FULTON COUNTY
MOUNTAIN PARK
0.8%
FULTON COUNTY
COGBURN WOODS
0.9%
FULTON COUNTY
E C WEST ELEM
1.0%
FULTON COUNTY
SHAKERAG ELEM
1.0%
FULTON COUNTY
RENAISSANCE M
1.1%
FULTON COUNTY
RIVER EVES EL
1.1%
FULTON COUNTY
BARNWELL ELEM
1.1%
FULTON COUNTY
HILLSIDE ELEM
1.1%
FULTON COUNTY
LAKE WINDWARD
1.3%
FULTON COUNTY
NORTHWOOD ELE
1.8%
FULTON COUNTY
MOUNT OLIVE E
1.9%
FULTON COUNTY
CAMPBELL ELEM
2.0%
FULTON COUNTY
WOODLAND ELEM
2.0%
FULTON COUNTY
KIPPSFULTO
2.6%
FULTON COUNTY
MANNING OAKS
2.6%
FULTON COUNTY
PALMETTO ELEM
2.7%
FULTON COUNTY
LIBERTY POINT
2.7%
FULTON COUNTY
MIMOSA ELEMEN
2.7%
FULTON COUNTY
DUNWOODYSPRI
3.4%
FULTON COUNTY
SPALDING DRIV
3.4%
FULTON COUNTY
ABBOTTS HILL
4.2%
FULTON COUNTY
RENAISSANCE E
4.4%
FULTON COUNTY
NEW PROSPECT
4.9%
FULTON COUNTY
HEARDS FERRY
6.3%
FULTON COUNTY
OAKLEY ELEMEN
6.3%
FULTON COUNTY
HAPEVILLE ELE
6.4%
FULTON COUNTY
HIGH POINT EL
6.7%
FULTON COUNTY
HERITAGE ELEM
6.7%
FULTON COUNTY
COLLEGE PARK
6.9%
FULTON COUNTY
CRABAPPLE MID
7.1%
FULTON COUNTY
SANDTOWN MIDD
7.4%
FULTON COUNTY
OAK KNOLL ELE
7.7%
FULTON COUNTY
BETHUNE ELEME
8.0%
FULTON COUNTY
AUTREY MILL M
8.3%
FULTON COUNTY
PARKLANE ELEM
8.3%
FULTON COUNTY
ROSWELL NORTH
8.8%
FULTON COUNTY
BROOKVIEW ELE
10.3%
FULTON COUNTY
PAUL D WEST
12.3%
FULTON COUNTY
BEAR CREEK Ml
12.5%
FULTON COUNTY
STONEWALL TEL
12.6%
FULTON COUNTY
LEE ELEMENTAR
12.6%
FULTON COUNTY
NOLAN ELEMENT
13.0%
FULTON COUNTY
HAMILTON E H
13.2%
Page 20 of 37
510
Office of Student Achievement
FULTON COUNTY
TUBMAN ELEMEN
13.6%
FULTON COUNTY
CAMP CREEK Ml
18.5%
FULTON COUNTY
CONLEY HILLS
19.6%
FULTON COUNTY
SL LEWIS ELE
22.5%
FULTON COUNTY
RANDOLPH ELEM
23.6%
FULTON COUNTY
WOODLAND MIDD
29.9%
FULTON COUNTY
HAPEVILLE CHA
44.4%
FULTON COUNTY
GULLATT ELEME
44.9%
GAINESVILLE CITY
ENOTA ELEMENT
0.0%
GAINESVILLE CITY
CENTENNIAL EL
0.0%
GAINESVILLE CITY
GAINESVILLE M
2.9%
GAINESVILLE CITY
NEW HOLLAND E
4.5%
GAINESVILLE CITY
FAIR STREET E
13.9%
GAINESVILLE CITY
GAINESVILLE E
25.6%
GEORGIA ACADEMY FOR
GEORGIA ACADE
4.2%
GEORGIA SCHOOLS
GEORGIA SCHOOLS
0.0%
GILMER COUNTY
OAKLAND ELEME
0.0%
GILMER COUNTY
ELLIJAY PRIMA
0.0%
GILMER COUNTY
MOUNTAIN VIEW
0.0%
GILMER COUNTY
ELLIJAY ELEME
0.0%
GILMER COUNTY
GILMER MIDDLE
0.0%
GILMER COUNTY
CLEAR CREEK M
0.0%
GLASCOCK COUNTY
GLASCOCK CO UN
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
MORNINGSTART
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
RISLEY MIDDLE
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
BURROUGHS MOL
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
STERLING ELEM
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
GLYNDALE ELEM
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
ST SIMONS EL
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
GOODYEAR ELEM
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
OGLETHORPE PO
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
GLYNN MIDDLE
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
NEEDWOOD MIDD
0.0%
GLYNN COUNTY
JANE MACON Ml
0.8%
GLYNN COUNTY
GOLDEN ISLES
1.1%
GLYNN COUNTY
GREER ELEMENT
1.3%
GLYNN COUNTY
ALTAMA ELEMEN
1.3%
GLYNN COUNTY
SATILLA MARSH
2.2%
GORDON COUNTY
DOWNING CLAR
0.0%
GORDON COUNTY
FAIRMOUNT ELE
0.0%
GORDON COUNTY
SWAIN ELEMENT
0.0%
GORDON COUNTY
TOLBERT ELEME
0.0%
GORDON COUNTY
BELWOOD ELEME
0.0%
GORDON COUNTY
RED BUD ELEME
0.0%
GORDON COUNTY
ASHWORTH MIDD
4.8%
GORDON COUNTY
SONORAVILLE E
5.3%
GRADY COUNTY
WASHINGTON Ml
0.0%
GRADY COUNTY
WHIGHAM ELEME
0.0%
GRADY COUNTY
EASTSIDE ELEM
0.0%
GRADY COUNTY
NORTHSIDE ELE
2.1%
GRADY COUNTY
SOUTHSIDE ELE
2.2%
Page 21 of 37
511
Office of Student Achievement
GRADY COUNTY
SHIVER ELEMEN
3.6%
GREENE COUNTY
LAKE OCONEE C
0.0%
GREENE COUNTY
ANITA WHITE C
0.0%
GREENE COUNTY
UNION POINT E
0.0%
GREENE COUNTY
GREENSBORO EL
9.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
GWINNETT INTE
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
NEW LIFE ACAD
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
GWINNETT EDUC
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
MULBERRY ELEM
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
HARMONY ELEME
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
MOUNTAIN PARK
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
ANNISTOWN ELE
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
DYER ELEMENTA
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
PARTEE ELEMEN
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SIMPSON ELEME
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
HARRIS ELEMEN
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
ARCADO ELEMEN
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SUWANEE ELEME
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
CAMP CREEK EL
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
ROSEBUD ELEME
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
FIVE FORKS Ml
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
GRAYSON ELEME
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
TAYLOR ELEMEN
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SUGAR HILL EL
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
LILBURN MIDDL
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
JACKSON ELEME
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
FRANK N OSBO
0.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
MARGARET WINN
0.5%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SIMONTON ELEM
0.5%
GWINNETT COUNTY
RIVERSIDE ELE
0.5%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SYCAMORE ELEM
0.5%
GWINNETT COUNTY
MCCONNELL MID
0.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
MINOR ELEMENT
0.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
PHARR ELEMENT
0.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
DUNCAN CREEK
0.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
LEVEL CREEK E
0.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
BETHESDA ELEM
0.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
HARBINS ELEME
0.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SUSAN STRIPLI
0.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
PUCKETTS MIL
0.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
PARSONS ELEME
0.7%
GWINNETT COUNTY
BRITT ELEMENT
0.7%
GWINNETT COUNTY
ROCK SPRINGS
0.7%
GWINNETT COUNTY
GWIN OAKS ELE
0.7%
GWINNETT COUNTY
CREEKLAND MID
0.7%
GWINNETT COUNTY
ALCOVA ELEMEN
0.7%
GWINNETT COUNTY
DULUTH MIDDLE
0.8%
GWINNETT COUNTY
FORT DANIEL E
0.8%
GWINNETT COUNTY
CHARLES BRANT
0.8%
GWINNETT COUNTY
TRIP ELEMENTA
0.8%
GWINNETT COUNTY
IVY CREEK ELE
0.9%
Page 22 of 37
512
Office of Student Achievement
GWINNETT COUNTY
GLENN CJONE
0.9%
GWINNETT COUNTY
LANIER MIDDLE
0.9%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SHILOH ELEMEN
0.9%
GWINNETT COUNTY
TRICKUM MIDDL
1.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
HULL MIDDLES
1.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
ALTON C CREW
1.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
MEADOWCREEK E
1.1%
GWINNETT COUNTY
CRAIG ELEMENT
1.2%
GWINNETT COUNTY
LOVIN ELEMENT
1.2%
GWINNETT COUNTY
FREEMAN SMIL
1.2%
GWINNETT COUNTY
J AALFORD EL
1.2%
GWINNETT COUNTY
MCKENDREE ELE
1.3%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SNELLVILLE Ml
1.3%
GWINNETT COUNTY
DACULA ELEMEN
1.3%
GWINNETT COUNTY
BERKELEY LAKE
1.3%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SHILOH MIDDLE
1.4%
GWINNETT COUNTY
LILBURN ELEME
1.4%
GWINNETT COUNTY
NORCROSS ELEM
1.4%
GWINNETT COUNTY
CEDAR HILL EL
1.5%
GWINNETT COUNTY
M H MASON ELE
1.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
BENEFIELD ES
1.7%
GWINNETT COUNTY
BROOKWOOD ELE
2.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
DACULA MIDDLE
2.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
PATRICK ELEME
2.2%
GWINNETT COUNTY
RICHARDS MIDD
2.2%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SWEETWATER Ml
2.2%
GWINNETT COUNTY
NORTON ELEMEN
2.3%
GWINNETT COUNTY
PINCKNEYVILLE
2.4%
GWINNETT COUNTY
CHATTAHOOCHEE
2.4%
GWINNETT COUNTY
CENTERVILLE E
2.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
SUMMEROUR MID
2.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
LAWRENCEVILLE
2.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
BEAVER RIDGE
2.7%
GWINNETT COUNTY
BERKMAR MIDDL
2.8%
GWINNETT COUNTY
HOPKINS ELEME
2.9%
GWINNETT COUNTY
W J COOPER
3.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
WALNUT GROVE
3.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
MAGILL ELEMEN
3.1%
GWINNETT COUNTY
LOUISE RADLOF
4.0%
GWINNETT COUNTY
ROCKBRIDGE EL
4.5%
GWINNETT COUNTY
HEAD ELEMENTA
4.6%
GWINNETT COUNTY
PEACHTREE ELE
4.7%
GWINNETT COUNTY
KANOHEDAELEM
4.8%
GWINNETT COUNTY
KNIGHT ELEMEN
5.1%
GWINNETT COUNTY
CORLEY ELEMEN
5.8%
GWINNETT COUNTY
NESBIT ELEMEN
6.6%
HABERSHAM COUNTY
HAZEL GROVE E
0.0%
HABERSHAM COUNTY
LEVEL GROVE E
0.0%
HABERSHAM COUNTY
CORNELIA ELEM
1.3%
HABERSHAM COUNTY
DEMORESTELEM
1.7%
HABERSHAM COUNTY
NORTH HABERSH
1.7%
Page 23 of 37
513
Office of Student Achievement
HABERSHAM COUNTY
SOUTH HABERSH
1.9%
HABERSHAM COUNTY
CLARKESVILLE
5.3%
HABERSHAM COUNTY
BALDWIN ELEME
6.7%
HABERSHAM COUNTY
WOODVILLE ELE
7.7%
HABERSHAM COUNTY
FAIRVIEW ELEM
11.8%
HALL COUNTY
LANIER CAREER
0.0%
HALL COUNTY
ALPINE PSYCHO
0.0%
HALL COUNTY
CHICOPEE ELEM
0.0%
HALL COUNTY
LULA ELEMENTA
0.0%
HALL COUNTY
FLOWERY BRANC
0.0%
HALL COUNTY
NORTH HALL Ml
0.0%
HALL COUNTY
EAST HALL MID
0.0%
HALL COUNTY
SPOUT SPRINGS
0.8%
HALL COUNTY
CHESTATEE MID
1.0%
HALL COUNTY
FRIENDSHIP EL
1.0%
HALL COUNTY
SARDIS ELEMEN
1.0%
HALL COUNTY
CW DAVIS MID
1.1%
HALL COUNTY
TADMORE ELEME
1.1%
HALL COUNTY
LANIER ELEMEN
1.1%
HALL COUNTY
OAKWOOD ELEME
1.5%
HALL COUNTY
MCEVER ELEMEN
1.8%
HALL COUNTY
RIVERBEND ELE
2.1%
HALL COUNTY
MYERS ELEMENT
2.1%
HALL COUNTY
WEST HALL MID
2.1%
HALL COUNTY
MARTIN ELEMEN
2.2%
HALL COUNTY
SOUTH HALL Ml
2.4%
HALL COUNTY
WAUKA MOUNTAI
2.5%
HALL COUNTY
MOUNT VERNON
3.2%
HALL COUNTY
WORLD LANGUAG
4.4%
HALL COUNTY
SUGAR HILL EL
5.1%
HALL COUNTY
JONES ELEMENT
5.6%
HALL COUNTY
CHESTNUT MOUN
6.1%
HALL COUNTY
LYMAN HALL
6.3%
HALL COUNTY
WHITE SULPHUR
6.9%
HANCOCK COUNTY
HANCOCK MIDDL
6.3%
HANCOCK COUNTY
LEWIS ELEMENT
17.3%
HARALSON COUNTY
TALLAPOOSA P
0.0%
HARALSON COUNTY
BUCHANAN ELEM
0.0%
HARALSON COUNTY
HARALSON CO M
0.0%
HARALSON COUNTY
BUCHANAN PRIM
1.6%
HARALSON COUNTY
WEST HARALSON
1.9%
HARRIS COUNTY
HARRIS CO CAR
0.0%
HARRIS COUNTY
PARK ELEMENTA
1.4%
HARRIS COUNTY
PINE RIDGE EL
2.3%
HARRIS COUNTY
MULBERRY CREE
4.2%
HARRIS COUNTY
NEW MOUNTAIN
8.7%
HART COUNTY
HART COUNTY A
0.0%
HART COUNTY
HARTWELL ELEM
0.0%
HART COUNTY
SOUTH HART EL
0.0%
HART COUNTY
HART COUNTY M
0.8%
HART COUNTY
NORTH HART EL
3.4%
Page 24 of 37
514
Office of Student Achievement
HEARD COUNTY
CENTRALHATCHE
0.0%
HEARD COUNTY
HEARD CO MIDD
0.9%
HEARD COUNTY
EPHESUS ELEME
3.7%
HEARD COUNTY
HEARD ELEMENT
5.8%
HENRY COUNTY
COTTON INDIAN
0.0%
HENRY COUNTY
PATE S CREEK
0.0%
HENRY COUNTY
MOUNT CARMEL
0.0%
HENRY COUNTY
STOCKBRIDGE M
0.0%
HENRY COUNTY
NEW HOPE ELEM
0.0%
HENRY COUNTY
FLIPPEN ELEME
0.0%
HENRY COUNTY
LOCUST GROVE
0.0%
HENRY COUNTY
WOODLAND MIDD
0.0%
HENRY COUNTY
UNITY GROVE E
0.0%
HENRY COUNTY
OLA MIDDLE SC
0.3%
HENRY COUNTY
WALNUT CREEK
1.2%
HENRY COUNTY
MCDONOUGH ELE
1.2%
HENRY COUNTY
PLEASANT GROV
1.3%
HENRY COUNTY
LUELLA MIDDLE
1.5%
HENRY COUNTY
HENRY CO MIDD
1.6%
HENRY COUNTY
DUTCHTOWN MID
1.7%
HENRY COUNTY
STOCKBRIDGE E
1.9%
HENRY COUNTY
DUTCHTOWN ELE
2.2%
HENRY COUNTY
LUELLA ELEMEN
2.5%
HENRY COUNTY
AUSTIN ROAD E
2.9%
HENRY COUNTY
EAGLE S LANDI
2.9%
HENRY COUNTY
HAMPTON ELEME
3.1%
HENRY COUNTY
UNION GROVE M
3.3%
HENRY COUNTY
BETHLEHEM ELE
3.6%
HENRY COUNTY
PATRICK HENRY
3.7%
HENRY COUNTY
EAST LAKE ELE
3.8%
HENRY COUNTY
HICKORY FLAT
4.0%
HENRY COUNTY
OLAELEMENTAR
4.2%
HENRY COUNTY
WOODLAND ELEM
4.9%
HENRY COUNTY
RED OAK ELEME
5.1%
HENRY COUNTY
WESLEY LAKES
5.4%
HENRY COUNTY
TUSSAHAW ELEM
5.9%
HENRY COUNTY
OAKLAND ELEME
6.7%
HENRY COUNTY
SMITH BARNES
7.4%
HENRY COUNTY
AUSTIN ROAD M
8.5%
HENRY COUNTY
ROCK SPRING E
8.6%
HENRY COUNTY
TIMBER RIDGE
11.7%
HENRY COUNTY
FAIRVIEW ELEM
12.5%
HOUSTON COUNTY
MOSSY CREEK M
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
FEAGIN MILL M
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
NORTHSIDE MID
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
WATSON CENTER
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
HUNTINGTON Ml
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
PERRY PRIMARY
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
BONAIRE MIDDL
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
LINWOOD ELEME
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
LAKE JOY PRIM
0.0%
Page 25 of 37
515
Office of Student Achievement
HOUSTON COUNTY
WESTSIDE ELEM
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
TUCKER ELEMEN
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
KINGS CHAPEL
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
PERDUE ELEMEN
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
PARKWOOD ELEM
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
EAGLE SPRINGS
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
RUSSELL ELEME
0.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
PERRY MIDDLE
1.0%
HOUSTON COUNTY
CENTERVILLE E
1.2%
HOUSTON COUNTY
HILLTOP ELEME
1.2%
HOUSTON COUNTY
BONAIRE ELEME
1.3%
HOUSTON COUNTY
OUAILRUN ELE
1.3%
HOUSTON COUNTY
MATTHEW ARTHU
1.3%
HOUSTON COUNTY
LAKE JOY ELEM
1.3%
HOUSTON COUNTY
MORNINGSIDE E
1.5%
HOUSTON COUNTY
SHIRLEY HILLS
1.5%
HOUSTON COUNTY
LINDSEY ELEME
1.8%
HOUSTON COUNTY
WARNER ROBINS
2.1%
HOUSTON COUNTY
NORTHSIDE ELE
2.6%
HOUSTON COUNTY
THOMSON MIDDL
2.8%
HOUSTON COUNTY
DAVID A PERDU
5.8%
HOUSTON COUNTY
MILLER ELEMEN
5.8%
HOUSTON COUNTY
PEARL STEPHEN
9.5%
IRWIN COUNTY
IRWIN CO MIDD
0.0%
IRWIN COUNTY
IRWIN CO ELEM
0.0%
IVY PREP
IVY PREPARATO
5.6%
JACKSON COUNTY
W JACKSON PRI
0.0%
JACKSON COUNTY
W JACKSON INT
0.0%
JACKSON COUNTY
EAST JACK ELE
0.0%
JACKSON COUNTY
BENTON ELEMEN
0.0%
JACKSON COUNTY
MAYSVILLE ELE
0.0%
JACKSON COUNTY
KINGS BRIDGE
0.0%
JACKSON COUNTY
EAST JACK MID
0.0%
JACKSON COUNTY
GUM SPRINGS E
0.0%
JACKSON COUNTY
W JACKSON MID
0.0%
JACKSON COUNTY
NORTH JACKSON
2.0%
JACKSON COUNTY
SOUTH JACKSON
2.2%
JASPER COUNTY
WASHINGTON PA
0.0%
JASPER COUNTY
JASPER CO PRI
1.8%
JASPER COUNTY
JASPER CO MID
3.2%
JEFF DAVIS COUNTY
JEFF DAVIS Ml
0.0%
JEFF DAVIS COUNTY
JEFF DAVIS EL
0.0%
JEFF DAVIS COUNTY
JEFF DAVIS SC
3.8%
JEFFERSON CITY
JEFFERSON ELE
0.0%
JEFFERSON CITY
JEFFERSON ACA
1.1%
JEFFERSON CITY
JEFFERSON MID
1.7%
JEFFERSON COUNTY
CARVER ELEMEN
0.0%
JEFFERSON COUNTY
LOUISVILLE Ml
4.0%
JEFFERSON COUNTY
WRENS MIDDLE
10.4%
JEFFERSON COUNTY
WRENS ELEMENT
11.1%
JEFFERSON COUNTY
LOUISVILLE AC
12.8%
Page 26 of 37
516
Office of Student Achievement
JENKINS COUNTY
JENKINS CO Ml
3.6%
JENKINS COUNTY
JENKINS CO EL
7.8%
JOHNSON COUNTY
JOHNSON CO Ml
0.0%
JOHNSON COUNTY
JOHNSON CO EL
1.4%
JONES COUNTY
WELLS PRIMARY
0.0%
JONES COUNTY
MATTIE WELLS
0.0%
JONES COUNTY
GRAY ELEMENTA
0.0%
JONES COUNTY
DAMES FERRY E
1.0%
JONES COUNTY
GRAY STATION
4.0%
JONES COUNTY
CLIFTON RIDGE
5.1%
LAMAR COUNTY
LAMAR CO MIDD
0.0%
LAMAR COUNTY
LAMAR CO ELE
1.2%
LAMAR COUNTY
LAMAR CO PRIM
3.0%
LANIER COUNTY
LANIER CO MID
0.0%
LANIER COUNTY
LANIER CO ELE
0.0%
LAURENS COUNTY
EAST LAUREN M
0.0%
LAURENS COUNTY
EAST LAUREN E
0.0%
LAURENS COUNTY
W LAURENS MID
2.8%
LAURENS COUNTY
SOUTHWEST LAU
4.3%
LAURENS COUNTY
EAST LAUREN P
4.5%
LAURENS COUNTY
NORTHWEST LAU
8.7%
LEE COUNTY
KINCHAFOONEE
0.0%
LEE COUNTY
TWIN OAKS ELE
0.0%
LEE COUNTY
LEE COUNTY EL
0.0%
LEE COUNTY
LEE COUNTY Ml
0.6%
LEE COUNTY
LEE COUNTY PR
1.4%
LIBERTY COUNTY
LYMAN HALL EL
0.0%
LIBERTY COUNTY
MIDWAY MIDDLE
0.0%
LIBERTY COUNTY
LIBERTY ELEME
1.0%
LIBERTY COUNTY
SNELSON GOLDE
1.2%
LIBERTY COUNTY
JOSEPH MARTIN
1.4%
LIBERTY COUNTY
LEWIS FRASIER
2.3%
LIBERTY COUNTY
TAYLORS CREEK
2.5%
LIBERTY COUNTY
WALDO PAFFORD
2.7%
LIBERTY COUNTY
BUTTON GWINNE
3.7%
LIBERTY COUNTY
JORDYE BACON
5.1%
LIBERTY COUNTY
FRANK LONG EL
6.0%
LINCOLN COUNTY
LINCOLN CO Ml
0.0%
LINCOLN COUNTY
LINCOLN CO EL
1.4%
LONG COUNTY
WALKER MIDDLE
0.0%
LONG COUNTY
SMILEY ELEMEN
3.1%
LOWNDES COUNTY
HAHIRA MIDDLE
0.0%
LOWNDES COUNTY
CLYATTVILLE E
0.0%
LOWNDES COUNTY
DEWAR ELEMENT
0.0%
LOWNDES COUNTY
MOULTON BRANC
0.0%
LOWNDES COUNTY
WESTSIDE ELEM
0.0%
LOWNDES COUNTY
LAKE PARK ELE
0.0%
LOWNDES COUNTY
HAHIRA ELEMEN
1.1%
LOWNDES COUNTY
PINE GROVE EL
1.1%
LOWNDES COUNTY
LOWNDES MIDDL
1.5%
LUMPKIN COUNTY
BLACKBURN ELE
0.0%
Page 27 of 37
517
Office of Student Achievement
LUMPKIN COUNTY
LONG BRANCH E
1.5%
LUMPKIN COUNTY
LUMPKIN CO EL
2.2%
LUMPKIN COUNTY
LUMPKIN CO Ml
22.2%
MACON COUNTY
MACON CO ELEM
2.4%
MACON COUNTY
MACON CO MIDD
6.7%
MADISON COUNTY
MADISON CO Ml
0.0%
MADISON COUNTY
COMER ELEMENT
0.0%
MADISON COUNTY
ILA ELEMENTAR
0.0%
MADISON COUNTY
HULL SAN FORD
0.0%
MADISON COUNTY
COLBERT ELEME
0.0%
MADISON COUNTY
DANIELSVILLE
0.0%
MARIETTA CITY
MARIETTA SCH
0.0%
MARIETTA CITY
MARIETTA CHAR
0.0%
MARIETTA CITY
MARIETTA CENT
0.0%
MARIETTA CITY
HICKORY HILLS
0.0%
MARIETTA CITY
BURRUSS ELEME
0.0%
MARIETTA CITY
WEST SIDE ELE
0.0%
MARIETTA CITY
SAWYER ROAD E
0.0%
MARIETTA CITY
PARK STREET E
0.0%
MARIETTA CITY
DUNLEITH ELEM
2.8%
MARIETTA CITY
LOCKHEED ELEM
3.2%
MARIETTA CITY
MARIETTA MIDD
6.3%
MARION COUNTY
MARION MIDDLE
0.0%
MARION COUNTY
LK MOSS PRIM
5.7%
MCDUFFIE COUNTY
THOMSONMCDUFF
0.0%
MCDUFFIE COUNTY
THOMSON MIDDL
0.0%
MCDUFFIE COUNTY
DEARING ELEME
0.0%
MCDUFFIE COUNTY
NORRIS ELEMEN
0.0%
MCDUFFIE COUNTY
THOMSON ELEME
1.0%
MCDUFFIE COUNTY
MAXWELL ELEME
4.8%
MCINTOSH COUNTY
OAK GROVE INT
0.0%
MCINTOSH COUNTY
TODD GRANT EL
3.0%
MCINTOSH COUNTY
MCINTOSH CO M
5.6%
MERIWETHER COUNTY
GREENVILLE Ml
0.0%
MERIWETHER COUNTY
GEORGE E WAS
0.0%
MERIWETHER COUNTY
MANCHESTER Ml
0.0%
MERIWETHER COUNTY
UNITY ELEMENT
1.8%
MERIWETHER COUNTY
MOUNTAIN VIEW
2.0%
MILLER COUNTY
MILLER CO MID
0.0%
MILLER COUNTY
MILLER CO ELE
2.1%
MITCHELL COUNTY
BACONTON COMM
3.2%
MITCHELL COUNTY
WALKER INMAN
6.7%
MITCHELL COUNTY
MITCHELL CO P
7.8%
MITCHELL COUNTY
MITCHELL CO M
9.3%
MONROE COUNTY
TG SCOTT ELE
0.0%
MONROE COUNTY
BANKS STEPHEN
2.7%
MONROE COUNTY
WILLIAM M HUB
3.1%
MONROE COUNTY
SAMUEL E HUBB
3.8%
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
NEW MONTGOMER
2.8%
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
MONTGOMERY CO
4.2%
MORGAN COUNTY
MORGAN CO MID
0.0%
Page 28 of 37
518
Office of Student Achievement
MORGAN COUNTY
MORGAN CO PRI
0.0%
MORGAN COUNTY
MORGAN CO ELE
5.7%
MURRAY COUNTY
MOUNTAIN CREE
0.0%
MURRAY COUNTY
NORTHWEST ELE
0.0%
MURRAY COUNTY
GLADDEN MIDDL
0.0%
MURRAY COUNTY
WOODLAWN ELEM
0.0%
MURRAY COUNTY
COKER ELEMENT
0.9%
MURRAY COUNTY
ETON ELEMENTA
1.1%
MURRAY COUNTY
NEW BAG LEY Ml
2.7%
MURRAY COUNTY
CHATSWORTH EL
2.9%
MURRAY COUNTY
SPRING PLACE
3.2%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
DOUBLE MIDDLE
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
VETERANS MEMO
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
RICHARDS MIDD
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
BLACKMON ROAD
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
DOUBLE CHURCH
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
CLUBVIEW ELEM
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
MIDLAND ACADE
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
DIMON ELEMENT
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
MATHEWS ELE ME
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
GENTIAN ELEME
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
ALLEN ELEMENT
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
BLANCHARD ELE
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
FORT MIDDLE S
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
NORTH COLUMBU
0.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
ROTHSCHILD Ml
0.8%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
FOX ELEMENTAR
1.3%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
EAGLE RIDGE A
1.4%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
HANNAN ELEMEN
1.6%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
SOUTH COLUMBU
1.6%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
BRITT DAVID E
1.7%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
ARNOLD MIDDLE
2.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
WYNNTON ELEME
2.1%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
KEY ELEMENTAR
2.2%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
BENNING HILLS
3.0%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
WESLEY HEIGHT
3.3%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
DAWSON ELEMEN
3.7%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
RIGDON ROAD E
4.2%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
JOHNSON ELEME
4.2%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
MIDLAND MIDDL
4.3%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
RIVER ROAD EL
4.8%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
EDDY MIDDLE S
5.3%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
REESE ROAD EL
5.6%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
LONNIEJACKSO
5.6%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
FORREST ROAD
7.4%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
ST MARYS VI D
7.9%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
DOWNTOWN ELEM
8.3%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
BAKER MIDDLE
9.8%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
EDGEWOOD ELEM
10.5%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
MARSHALL MIDD
11.1%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
EAST COLUMBUS
12.1%
Page 29 of 37
519
Office of Student Achievement
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
GEORGETOWN EL
12.3%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
CUSSETA ROAD
14.3%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
MARTIN LUTHER
19.2%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
WADDELLELEME
19.7%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
BREWER ELEMEN
21.7%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
DAVIS ELEMENT
29.2%
MUSCOGEE COUNTY
MUSCOGEE ELEM
51.9%
NEWTON COUNTY
PROJECT ADVEN
0.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
CHALLENGE CHA
0.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
INDIAN CREEK
0.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
MANSFIELD ELE
0.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
PORTERDALE EL
0.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
PALMER STONE
0.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
OAK HILL ELEM
0.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
LIVINGSTON EL
0.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
FAIRVIEW ELEM
0.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
FICQUETTELEM
0.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
COUSINS MIDDL
0.7%
NEWTON COUNTY
SOUTH SALEM E
0.9%
NEWTON COUNTY
WEST NEWTON E
1.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
VETERANS MEMO
1.4%
NEWTON COUNTY
ROCKY PLAINS
1.8%
NEWTON COUNTY
MIDDLE RIDGE
2.0%
NEWTON COUNTY
EAST NEWTON E
2.6%
NEWTON COUNTY
HEARD MIXON E
2.8%
NEWTON COUNTY
CLEMENTS MIDD
2.9%
OCONEE COUNTY
MALCOM BRIDGE
0.0%
OCONEE COUNTY
OCONEE CO MID
0.0%
OCONEE COUNTY
OCONEE CO PRI
0.0%
OCONEE COUNTY
ROCKY BRANCH
0.0%
OCONEE COUNTY
MALCOM ELEMEN
0.0%
OCONEE COUNTY
OCONEE CO ELE
0.0%
OCONEE COUNTY
COLHAM FERRY
3.7%
ODYSSEY
ODYSSEY SCH
1.4%
OGLETHORPE COUNTY
OGLETHORPE Ml
0.0%
OGLETHORPE COUNTY
OGLETHORPE CO
0.0%
OGLETHORPE COUNTY
OGLETHORPE EL
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
NEW GEORGIA E
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
RITCH ELEMENT
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
DALLAS ELEMEN
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
ABNEY ELEMENT
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
MCGARITY ELEM
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
NORTHSIDE ELE
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
HIRAM ELEMENT
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
SAM D PANTER
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
BESSIE L BAG
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
BURNT HICKORY
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
SAMMY MCCLURE
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
C A ROBERTS
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
LILLIAN C POO
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
ROLAND WRUS
0.0%
Page 30 of 37
520
Office of Student Achievement
PAULDING COUNTY
IRMAC AUSTIN
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
NEBO ELEMENTA
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
J A DOBBINS M
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
CONNIE DUGAN
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
EAST PAUL MID
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
LENA MAE MOSE
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
HERSCHELJONE
0.0%
PAULDING COUNTY
SPAULDIN MID
0.7%
PAULDING COUNTY
ALLGOOD ELEM
0.9%
PAULDING COUNTY
FLOYD LSHEL
1.5%
PAULDING COUNTY
UNION ELEMENT
3.8%
PEACH COUNTY
BYRON MIDDLE
0.0%
PEACH COUNTY
HUNT ELEMENTA
0.0%
PEACH COUNTY
BYRON ELEMENT
0.0%
PEACH COUNTY
FORT VALLEY M
1.6%
PEACH COUNTY
HUNT PRIMARY
5.8%
PELHAM CITY
PELHAM CITY M
1.1%
PELHAM CITY
PELHAM ELEMEN
1.1%
PICKENS COUNTY
PICKENS CO Ml
0.0%
PICKENS COUNTY
JASPER MIDDLE
0.0%
PICKENS COUNTY
TATE ELEMENTA
0.0%
PICKENS COUNTY
HILL CITY ELE
0.0%
PICKENS COUNTY
HARMONY ELEME
2.0%
PICKENS COUNTY
JASPER ELEMEN
2.7%
PIERCE COUNTY
PATTERSON ELE
0.0%
PIERCE COUNTY
PIERCE CO MID
0.0%
PIERCE COUNTY
BLACKSHEAR EL
8.9%
PIKE COUNTY
PIKE COUNTY P
0.0%
PIKE COUNTY
PIKE COUNTY E
0.9%
PIKE COUNTY
PIKE COUNTY M
0.9%
PIONEER RESA
PIONEER RESA
0.0%
POLK COUNTY
CEDARTOWN MID
0.0%
POLK COUNTY
ROCKMARTMIDD
0.0%
POLK COUNTY
HARPSTACADEM
0.0%
POLK COUNTY
GOODYEAR ELEM
1.3%
POLK COUNTY
EASTSIDE ELEM
1.7%
POLK COUNTY
WESTSIDE ELEM
3.7%
POLK COUNTY
CHEROKEE ELEM
3.7%
POLK COUNTY
NORTHSIDE ELE
4.9%
PULASKI COUNTY
PULASKI CO Ml
0.0%
PULASKI COUNTY
PULASKI CO EL
0.9%
PUTNAM COUNTY
PUTNAM CO MID
0.0%
PUTNAM COUNTY
PUTNAM CO ELE
2.5%
QUITMAN COUNTY
NEW QUITMAN C
42.4%
RABUN COUNTY
RABUN CO MIDD
0.0%
RABUN COUNTY
RABUN GAP COM
0.0%
RABUN COUNTY
SOUTH RABUN E
0.0%
RABUN COUNTY
RABUN CO ELEM
0.0%
RANDOLPH COUNTY
RANDOLPH MIDD
6.3%
RANDOLPH COUNTY
RANDOLPH CO E
6.9%
RICHMOND COUNTY
AUGUSTA A AN
0.0%
Page 31 of 37
521
Office of Student Achievement
RICHMOND COUNTY
LIGHTHOUSE CA
0.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
GARRETT ELEME
0.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
DAVIDSON MAGN
0.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
HAINS ELEMENT
0.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
TUTT MIDDLES
0.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
WALKER TRADIT
0.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
MORGAN ROAD M
0.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
MURPHEY MIDDL
0.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
SEGO MIDDLE S
0.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
LANGFORD MIDD
0.9%
RICHMOND COUNTY
GLENN HILLS E
0.9%
RICHMOND COUNTY
GOSHEN ELEMEN
1.6%
RICHMOND COUNTY
HEPHZIBAH ELE
1.7%
RICHMOND COUNTY
SOUTHSIDE ELE
1.8%
RICHMOND COUNTY
TERRACE MANOR
2.1%
RICHMOND COUNTY
DEER CHASE EL
2.2%
RICHMOND COUNTY
HEPHZIBAH MID
2.4%
RICHMOND COUNTY
LAKE FOREST H
2.9%
RICHMOND COUNTY
WINDSOR SPRIN
3.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
SPIRIT CREEK
3.2%
RICHMOND COUNTY
TUBMAN MIDDLE
3.3%
RICHMOND COUNTY
MEADOWBROOK E
3.4%
RICHMOND COUNTY
MERRY ELEMENT
3.9%
RICHMOND COUNTY
MCBEAN ELEMEN
4.3%
RICHMOND COUNTY
GRACEWOOD ELE
4.8%
RICHMOND COUNTY
WILLIS FOREMA
5.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
SUE REYNOLDS
5.9%
RICHMOND COUNTY
MONTE SANO EL
6.7%
RICHMOND COUNTY
WILKINSON GAR
6.7%
RICHMOND COUNTY
TOBACCO ROAD
6.7%
RICHMOND COUNTY
GLENN HILLS M
6.8%
RICHMOND COUNTY
ROLLINS ELEME
7.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
NATIONAL HILL
7.1%
RICHMOND COUNTY
EAST AUGUSTA
7.2%
RICHMOND COUNTY
BARTON CHAPEL
7.4%
RICHMOND COUNTY
FREEDOM PARK
9.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
BLYTHE ELEMEN
9.8%
RICHMOND COUNTY
WHEELESS ROAD
11.1%
RICHMOND COUNTY
JAMESTOWN ELE
11.7%
RICHMOND COUNTY
DIAMOND LAKES
12.5%
RICHMOND COUNTY
WARREN ROAD E
12.5%
RICHMOND COUNTY
COLLINS ELEME
13.0%
RICHMOND COUNTY
BAYVALE ELEME
14.9%
RICHMOND COUNTY
CRAIG HOUGHTO
17.4%
RICHMOND COUNTY
COPELAND ELEM
17.5%
RICHMOND COUNTY
MILLEDGE ELEM
19.6%
RICHMOND COUNTY
LAMAR ELEMENT
26.2%
RICHMOND COUNTY
HORNSBY ELEME
45.1%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
HONEY CREEK E
0.0%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
HOUSE ELEMENT
0.0%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
EDWARDS MIDDL
0.0%
Page 32 of 37
522
Office of Student Achievement
ROCKDALE COUNTY
GENERAL RAY D
1.0%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
SHOAL CREEK E
1.1%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
PEEKS CHAPEL
1.2%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
PINE STREET E
1.5%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
MEMORIAL MIDD
2.5%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
FLAT SHOALS E
2.7%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
CONYERS MIDDL
3.1%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
LORRAINE ELEM
3.4%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
SIMS ELEMENTA
4.3%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
HIGHTOWERTRA
4.4%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
BARKSDALE ELE
5.8%
ROCKDALE COUNTY
HICKS ELEMENT
10.3%
ROME CITY
ANNA K DAVIE
0.0%
ROME CITY
ROME MIDDLES
2.2%
ROME CITY
WEST END ELEM
2.8%
ROME CITY
ELM STREET EL
3.7%
ROME CITY
MAIN ELEMENTA
7.7%
ROME CITY
EAST CENTRAL
8.7%
ROME CITY
WEST CENTRAL
11.5%
ROME CITY
NORTH HEIGHTS
12.8%
ROME CITY
SOUTHEAST ELE
19.6%
SCHLEY COUNTY
SCHLEY COUNTY
0.0%
SCHLEY COUNTY
SCHLEY MIDDLE
2.6%
SCHOLARS ACADEMY
SCHOLARS ACAD
20.0%
SCREVEN COUNTY
SCREVEN CO Ml
0.0%
SCREVEN COUNTY
SCREVEN CO EL
7.9%
SEMINOLE COUNTY
SEMINOLE CO M
2.6%
SEMINOLE COUNTY
SEMINOLE CO E
6.1%
SOCIAL CIRCLE CITY
SOCIAL PRIMAR
0.0%
SOCIAL CIRCLE CITY
SOCIAL ELEMEN
0.0%
SOCIAL CIRCLE CITY
SOCIAL CIRCLE
0.0%
SPALDING COUNTY
JACKSON ROAD
0.0%
SPALDING COUNTY
COWAN ROAD Ml
0.0%
SPALDING COUNTY
CARVER ROAD M
0.9%
SPALDING COUNTY
FUTRAL ROAD E
1.3%
SPALDING COUNTY
JORDAN HILL R
1.5%
SPALDING COUNTY
BEAVERBROOK E
1.6%
SPALDING COUNTY
ORRS ELEMENTA
2.5%
SPALDING COUNTY
KENNEDY ROAD
2.7%
SPALDING COUNTY
TAYLOR STREET
3.1%
SPALDING COUNTY
COWAN ROAD EL
3.4%
SPALDING COUNTY
CRESCENT ROAD
3.5%
SPALDING COUNTY
ANNE STREET E
6.1%
SPALDING COUNTY
MORELAND ROAD
7.2%
SPALDING COUNTY
ATKINSON ELEM
28.6%
SPALDING COUNTY
MOORE ELEMENT
31.7%
STEPHENS COUNTY
STEPHENS CO M
0.0%
STEPHENS COUNTY
EASTANOLLEE E
0.0%
STEPHENS COUNTY
BIG A ELEMENT
0.0%
STEPHENS COUNTY
LIBERTY ELEM E
0.0%
STEPHENS COUNTY
TOCCOA ELEMEN
1.3%
Page 33 of 37
523
Office of Student Achievement
STEWART COUNTY
STEWART CO Ml
0.0%
STEWART COUNTY
STEWART CO EL
14.3%
SUMTER COUNTY
SARAH COBB EL
0.0%
SUMTER COUNTY
STALEY MIDDLE
0.0%
SUMTER COUNTY
SUMTER CO PRI
0.0%
SUMTER COUNTY
SUMTER CO ELE
0.0%
SUMTER COUNTY
CHEROKEE ELEM
2.1%
SUMTER COUNTY
SUMTER CO MID
3.1%
TALBOT COUNTY
CENTRAL ELEME
15.0%
TALIAFERRO COUNTY
TALIAFERRO CO
11.1%
TATTNALL COUNTY
GLENNVILLE Ml
0.0%
TATTNALL COUNTY
COLLINS MIDDL
0.0%
TATTNALL COUNTY
COLLINS ELEME
0.0%
TATTNALL COUNTY
GLENNVILLE EL
0.0%
TATTNALL COUNTY
REIDSVILLE EL
2.7%
TATTNALL COUNTY
REIDSVILLE Ml
3.7%
TAYLOR COUNTY
GEORGIA CENTE
0.0%
TAYLOR COUNTY
TAYLOR CO PRI
0.0%
TAYLOR COUNTY
TAYLOR CO MID
0.0%
TAYLOR COUNTY
TAYLOR CO UPP
0.0%
TELFAIR COUNTY
TELFAIR CO Ml
0.0%
TELFAIR COUNTY
TELFAIR CO EL
6.3%
TERRELL COUNTY
COOPER PRIMAR
0.0%
TERRELL COUNTY
TERRELL MIDDL
2.2%
TERRELL COUNTY
CARVER ELEMEN
5.3%
THOMAS COUNTY
CROSS CREEK E
0.0%
THOMAS COUNTY
THOMAS CO MID
0.7%
THOMAS COUNTY
GARRISON PILC
1.4%
THOMASTONUPSON COUNT
UPSON LEE NOR
0.0%
THOMASTONUPSON COUNT
UPSON LEE MID
0.0%
THOMASTONUPSON COUNT
UPSON LEE SOU
0.6%
THOMASVILLE CITY
MACINTYRE PAR
0.0%
THOMASVILLE CITY
JERGER ELEMEN
0.0%
THOMASVILLE CITY
SCOTT ELEMENT
3.8%
THOMASVILLE CITY
HARPER ELEMEN
12.0%
TIFT COUNTY
NORTHSIDE PRI
0.0%
TIFT COUNTY
OMEGA ELEMENT
0.0%
TIFT COUNTY
G 0 BAILEY PR
0.0%
TIFT COUNTY
LEN LASTING ER
0.0%
TIFT COUNTY
CHARLES SPENC
0.0%
TIFT COUNTY
EIGHTH STREET
1.3%
TIFT COUNTY
MATT WILSON E
1.3%
TIFT COUNTY
ANNIE BELLE C
1.8%
TIFT COUNTY
J T REDDICK E
6.2%
TOOMBS COUNTY
TOOMBS CENTRA
0.0%
TOOMBS COUNTY
TOOMBS CO MID
0.0%
TOOMBS COUNTY
LYONS UPPER E
4.2%
TOOMBS COUNTY
LYONS PRIMARY
4.8%
TOWNS COUNTY
TOWNS CO MIDD
0.0%
TOWNS COUNTY
TOWNS CO ELEM
0.0%
TREUTLEN COUNTY
TREUTLEN MIDD
0.0%
Page 34 of 37
524
Office of Student Achievement
TREUTLEN COUNTY
TREUTLEN ELEM
0.0%
TRION CITY
TRION MIDDLE
0.0%
TRION CITY
TRION ELEMENT
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
BRADFIELD CEN
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
MOUNTVILLE EL
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
WEST POINT EL
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
HOLLIS HAND E
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
HILLCREST ELE
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
LONG CANE ELE
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
ROSEMONTELEM
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
CALLAWAY ES
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
WEST SIDE MAG
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
CALLAWAY MIDD
0.0%
TROUP COUNTY
GARDNER NEWMA
0.8%
TROUP COUNTY
LONG CANE MID
1.5%
TROUP COUNTY
WHITESVILLE R
1.7%
TROUP COUNTY
FRANKLIN FORE
1.8%
TROUP COUNTY
HOGANSVILLE E
2.1%
TROUP COUNTY
UNITY ELEMENT
2.1%
TROUP COUNTY
BERTA WEATHER
2.1%
TROUP COUNTY
CANNON STREET
3.7%
TROUP COUNTY
ETHEL KIGHTM
5.3%
TURNER COUNTY
TURNER CO MID
0.0%
TURNER COUNTY
TURNER CO SPE
0.0%
TURNER COUNTY
TURNER CO ELE
4.5%
TWIGGS COUNTY
TWIGGS MIDDLE
3.9%
TWIGGS COUNTY
JEFFERSONVILL
8.9%
UNION COUNTY
WOODY GAP HIG
0.0%
UNION COUNTY
UNION CO MIDD
0.0%
UNION COUNTY
UNION CO ELEM
0.0%
UNION COUNTY
UNION CO PRIM
1.6%
VALDOSTA CITY
VALDOSTA EARL
0.0%
VALDOSTA CITY
VALDOSTA MIDD
0.0%
VALDOSTA CITY
SALLAS MAHONE
0.0%
VALDOSTA CITY
SL MASON ELE
3.5%
VALDOSTA CITY
SOUTHEAST ELE
4.2%
VALDOSTA CITY
J L LOMAX ELE
5.6%
VALDOSTA CITY
NUNN ELEMENTA
10.3%
VALDOSTA CITY
NEWBERN MIDDL
15.4%
VIDALIA CITY
J RTRIPPE Ml
0.0%
VIDALIA CITY
SALLY DAI LEY
0.0%
VIDALIA CITY
J D DICKERS P
16.7%
WALKER COUNTY
FAIRYLAND ELE
0.0%
WALKER COUNTY
ROSSVILLE MID
0.0%
WALKER COUNTY
CHATTANOOGA V
0.0%
WALKER COUNTY
GILBERT ELEME
0.0%
WALKER COUNTY
CHATTANOOGA E
0.0%
WALKER COUNTY
LAFAYETTE MID
0.0%
WALKER COUNTY
NORTH LAFAYET
1.4%
WALKER COUNTY
NAOMI ELEMENT
1.7%
WALKER COUNTY
STONE CREEK E
1.8%
Page 35 of 37
525
Office of Student Achievement
WALKER COUNTY
ROCK SPRING E
3.9%
WALKER COUNTY
ROSSVILLE ELE
5.3%
WALKER COUNTY
CHEROKEE RIDG
7.6%
WALTON COUNTY
LOGANVILLE Ml
0.0%
WALTON COUNTY
CARVER MIDDLE
0.0%
WALTON COUNTY
YOUTH MIDDLE
0.0%
WALTON COUNTY
SHARON ELEMEN
0.0%
WALTON COUNTY
YOUTH ELEMENT
0.0%
WALTON COUNTY
ATHA ROAD ELE
1.1%
WALTON COUNTY
WALKER PARK E
1.8%
WALTON COUNTY
MONROE ELEMEN
2.0%
WALTON COUNTY
BAY CREEK ELE
2.3%
WALTON COUNTY
WALNUT GROVE
3.3%
WALTON COUNTY
LOGANVILLE EL
4.2%
WALTON COUNTY
BLAINE ST ELE
11.1%
WARE COUNTY
WILLIAMS HEIG
0.0%
WARE COUNTY
CENTER ELEMEN
0.0%
WARE COUNTY
WARESBORO ELE
0.0%
WARE COUNTY
WARE COUNTY M
0.0%
WARE COUNTY
WAYCROSS MIDD
0.0%
WARE COUNTY
RUSKIN ELEMEN
1.5%
WARE COUNTY
WACONA ELEMEN
2.2%
WARE COUNTY
WARE MAGNETS
2.8%
WARE COUNTY
MEMORIAL DRIV
3.9%
WARREN COUNTY
FREEMAN ELEME
2.0%
WARREN COUNTY
WARREN CO MID
6.5%
WASHINGTON COUNTY
TJ ELDER M
0.0%
WASHINGTON COUNTY
SANDERSVILLE
0.0%
WASHINGTON COUNTY
CRAWFORD PRIM
4.8%
WASHINGTON COUNTY
ELDER PRIMARY
7.4%
WAYNE COUNTY
THOMAS P JAM
0.0%
WAYNE COUNTY
SCREVEN ELEME
0.0%
WAYNE COUNTY
ODUM ELEMENTA
0.0%
WAYNE COUNTY
BACON ELEMENT
0.0%
WAYNE COUNTY
ARTHUR WILLIA
0.0%
WAYNE COUNTY
MARTHA PUCKET
0.0%
WAYNE COUNTY
MARTHA RAWLS
0.0%
WAYNE COUNTY
JESUP ELEMENT
1.9%
WEBSTER COUNTY
WEBSTER COUNT
0.0%
WHEELER COUNTY
WHEELER CO HI
0.0%
WHEELER COUNTY
WHEELER CO EL
7.0%
WHITE COUNTY
JACK P NIX PR
0.0%
WHITE COUNTY
MOUNT YONAH E
0.0%
WHITE COUNTY
MOSSY CREEK E
0.0%
WHITE COUNTY
WHITE CO INT
0.0%
WHITE COUNTY
WHITE CO MIDD
0.0%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
EASTBROOK MID
0.0%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
NEW HOPE MIDD
0.0%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
COHUTTA ELEME
0.0%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
VARNELL ELEME
0.0%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
NEW HOPE ELEM
0.0%
Page 36 of 37
526
Office of Student Achievement
WHITFIELD COUNTY
WESTSIDE MIDD
0.0%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
VALLEY PT MID
0.8%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
BEAVERDALE EL
1.0%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
WESTSIDE ELEM
1.1%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
NORTH WHITFIE
2.0%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
PLEASANT GROV
2.2%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
DAWNVILLE ELE
2.3%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
ANTIOCH ELEME
2.9%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
VALLEY POINT
3.2%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
DUG GAP ELEME
3.5%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
TUNNEL HILL E
4.8%
WHITFIELD COUNTY
EASTSIDE ELEM
11.1%
WILCOX COUNTY
WILCOX CO MID
0.0%
WILCOX COUNTY
WILCOX CO ELE
9.0%
WILKES COUNTY
WASHINGTON EL
0.0%
WILKES COUNTY
WASHINGTON Ml
3.6%
WILKES COUNTY
WASHINGTON Wl
4.5%
WILKINSON COUNTY
WILKINSON COU
0.0%
WILKINSON COUNTY
WILKINSON ELE
0.0%
WILKINSON COUNTY
WILKINSON PRI
1.9%
WORTH COUNTY
WORTH CO PRIM
0.0%
WORTH COUNTY
WORTH CO MIDD
0.0%
WORTH COUNTY
SYLVESTER ELE
0.8%
Page 37 of 37
527
OydlcllllMcllIlc
jlllUUIIvdlllc
if r»f Pl9ccoe
ft UT ^.labbcb
if nf riaccoc rlacrcrArl \A/TR
ft ut Udsbcb riaggcU_vv 1 1\
/o ut Uddocd riaggcu_vv 1 1\
ATI AMTA Dl IRI IP QPUP1P1
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL DL^rlUV-J
dari^c; Minni f
rMr\l\D IVI IUULl
1:7
D ±
QQ CO/
Oi7 .D /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 M rUDLIL jL. II kJkJ
PJHFPiM^ Fl FMF
vj 1 UCUIMj clcivic
Dj
fi1
D ±
OO AO/
OO. H /0
ATI AMTA Dl IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
PFVTPiM FPiRFQT
rCT IUIM rUKCDI
11
fi9
DZ
Qfi 1 °A
oD . 1 /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPlPl
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
F 1 ^TAMTPlM
r L Jl AIM 1 WIM
Al
jj
9.1 1°A
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ DL^nUV-J
1 1 c:i— 1 P R Fl FMFMT
UjIIlr CLCIVICIM 1
D ±
AH
HU
70 AO/
/ o.H /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLIIUU
V/FMFTIAM Fill 1
VLIMLIIAIM nlLL
C>Q
D-7
7C; AO/,
/ D .H /Q
ATI AMTA Dl IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL DL^rlUV-J
PADITPil \/IF\A/
LAr 1 1 UL V 1 C VV
AO.
$H
/ U . <5 /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
PPiMMAI IV Fl FM
l_UIMIMMLLY CLCIVI
/ 0
DD
70
I U . D /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
HI IMRAP Fl FMFM
UUIMKMK CLCIVICIM
Dl
3^
JJ
(ZO CO/
Do.D /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPl
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLIIUU
^PPlTT Fl FMFMT
jLUI 1 C LC IVI CI n 1
7c:
D ±
cq no/
UO.U /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ DL^nUV-J
Rl Al PiPK Fl FMF
DLALLJ^Ix lLl IVIC
ZD
cf. 70/
DD. / /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
PFRKFRCiPiM Fl F
r Cr\l\Cr\DWIM LLL
/ £.
AR
HO
fifi l°/n
DD. / /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL DL^rlUV-J
TPAA/MQ Fl FMFMT
IUVVINj LLC IVI LIM 1
DD
Al
H£.
CO CO/
Do .D /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
\A/nnn^PiM fi fmf
Wl_Jl_JLOl_JIM CLCIVI C
fin
DU
00
fi3 1°/n
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
\A/U|TFFPiPiRn Fl
vVlill trUUrvU c L
11
jZ
CQ DO/
jy.j/o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPl
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
n H ^TAMTPiM F
u n jimimiwim c
AR
7R
zo
c:o 00/
JO,J/0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ DL^nUV-J
RPiVH Fl FMFMTA
DUI U CLCIVI C IM 1 M
C7
D /
11
jZ
Rfi 1 °/n
jD.1/0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
WF^T MAMPiR Fl
VVLj 1 IVIMIMWr\ CL
ZO
RA Q°/,
DH.J /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL DL^rlUV-J
Tl IRMFR Minni F
1 Ur\IMCn IVI IUULl
Dj
1A
$H
ca no/
DH .U /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
i/fmmf n v m i n n i
IxCIMIMCUT IVI 1 U UL
7Q
Al
HZ.
^1 l°/n
JJ.Z/O
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
FIPk'FTT Fl FMF
rl^l\C 1 1 CLClVIC
11
^1 A°A
jI.4/0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPl
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
FIMPH Fl FMFMT
1 1 IMV_rl C LC IVI C IM 1
7c:
aq no/
HO.KJ /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ DL^nUV-J
HFFRXA/PiPin APAH
Qfl
jU
Al
Al 9P/n
HI .0/0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
WHITF Fl FMFMT
w mi C C LC IVI LIM 1
c;7
11
z /
Al AOL
H / .H /Q
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL DL^rlUV-J
|_| 1 ITPUIMQPiM Fl
n u i lh i im jU in cl
DD
ai n0/.
H ! . U /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
l-ll IM PURIFY Fl F
rl U IVI rntxltj CLC
A^
HD
91
Z J_
Afi l°/n
H-D . / /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
RFMTFFM Fl FMF
DCIM 1 CCIM CLClVIC
1 1
zz
Al 1 0/
H$ . 1 /O
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPl
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
RFFfHFR HII 1 ^
DCC^nCrx rllLLO
DH
zo
A 1 f\°£
H-Z.D /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ DL^nUV-J
FA<TT 1 AKF Fl F
CM j 1 LMI\C CLC
DU
1 1
z ±
A 1 C\°/n
H-Z.U /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
PPiPiK Fl FMFMTA
w l\ CLCIVICIM 1 A
DH-
11
zz
An i°/n
H\J . / /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL DL^rlUV-J
FAIM Fl FMFMTA
rMIIM CLCIVICIM 1 A
75?
/ 0
31
1Q ~7°jL
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
TWPlM AQ\/II 1 F l-l
i nuiviMjv illc n
R7
0 /
1A
1Q 1 0/
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
PRIM Ml^i-I QPU
^KIIVI nlun OL^M
0
3
1
11 1°A
JJ.J/0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPl
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
nPlRR^ Fl FMFMT
UUDDj CLCIVICIM 1
Qn
in
33 3%
J Ji J /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ DL^nUV-J
ppiam Minni f <i
^V-JMIM IVIIUULC O
D ±
1 fi
ID
31 A°/n
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
<U ATFR Fl FMFM
JLn 1 Cr\ CLCIVICIM
qq
-7-7
in
jU
jU.j/0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL DL^rlUV-J
RFM 1 AMIM Q PA
DCIMJMIVIIIM D L^A
^n
Q
30 0°/.
jU.U/o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
P \A/ Fill 1 Fl FM
l_ VV niLL CLCIVI
D ±
±D
1Q AO/
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
PAQPARF Fl FMF
LAjLAUl CLClVIC
DD
1 Q
19. 90A
zo.o/o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPl
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
HFRITAPJF APAn
n Cm 1 AO C MLMU
7R
/ 0
11
zz
1R 1°A
zo.z /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ DL^nUV-J
AnAM<i\/ll 1 F Fl
MUMIVIDVILLC CL
11
in
zu
11 9P/n
Z / .0/0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
PI F\/FI AMR Fl F
V^LCVCLAIMU CLL
D-7
j_o
9fi 1 °/n
ZD. 1 /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL DL^rlUV-J
1 IMIX/FRQITV PPi
uiMivcr\Di I i
fin
DU
ID
•ye no/
ZD .U /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
WARPFR ARPWFR
r1Mr\rCr\ Mr\L,rlCr\
1 41
LHA.
1A
1A 1 °/n
Z.H.J. /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
RFTMI IMF Fl FMF
DCl MUIMC CLClVIC
7Q
1 S
lo
93 1 0/
Zj.I/o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP SPHDO
M A IDNFS Fl F
IVI n JUIiLJ l_LI_
/ 0
11 1%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
60
13
21.7%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOOMER ELEMEN
42
9
21.4%
528
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 M rUDLIL jLIIUU
DARI/cinF Fl FM
rr\r\l\jlUL LLLIvl
/ D
1 fi
ID
£. ± . D /0
ATI A NT A Dl IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL oL^rlWLJ
MFRMnnM Fl CMC
NLmMUWIM LLLIVIL
KA
1 1
1 1
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 M rUDLIL jL. II kJkJ
\A/II 1 IAIVK Fl FM
WILLIMIVIj LLLIvl
^A
1 1
1 1
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
(rpnuc DARK Fl
OrUVL rAr\l\ LL
/ D
ID
in n°/*
ZU.U /o
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP ^PHP)P)
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
Tup RRinf^F
1 rl L DIM UVJ L
D
1
1
1 fi 7°A
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ OL^rlWLJ
rditdm ArancM
DUL 1 WIN MVwrtULIVI
1 1
11
1 R Q°A
±D.j /o
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
IMAI^IMF VA/F^I F
IIVIMVJIIML VVLjLL
D ±
7
±D . f /0
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL OL^rlWLJ
i nwR Minni f q
LWIMO IVIIUULL j
Q7
1Z
1 1 A°£
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
KIMRFRIVFIFM
l\IIVIDLr\LT LLLIvl
fin
7
/
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
vni \k\c Minni f
YUUIMO IVIIUULL
1 1 A
13
11.4/0
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
QVI \/A M Ull 1 c
OT Lv AIM Ml LLo
1 n
1U
1U.4 /o
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r U DLI\- jLIIUU
RARnCM |_| 1 1 I
VJHr\ULIM nlLLj
/ z.
7
j. / /a
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
U 1 " v_/ VV III 1 V 1 1 \-J \-J 1— 1
108
10
9.3%
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL OL^rlWLJ
PPi NTI N F NT A 1 P
L^LJIM 1 1 IMC IM 1 ML U
fifi
D
Q 10/
J. 1 /o
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
ri impwf Minni F
DUIM^_rlL IVIIUULL
Q
7
/ . D /0
ATI A NT A PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
ri irp;f<;q pftfr
bUKutjj rt 1 Lr\
A~)
HZ.
o
7 10/
/ .1 /o
ATI AMTA Dl 1 D 1 IP CfUnn
M 1 LMIM 1 A KUbLIU jLMUU
i/imp: i\/iinni f c
IxllMo IVIIUULt o
11/1
7
/
C 10/
o.l /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWOPl
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ OL^rlWLJ
PWARI F^ R r»RF
LnMfMCj r\ Ur\L
QQ
c
D
3.1/0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QfHDn
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
immam Minni F
IIMIVIMIM IVIIUULL
111
111
D
D /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL OL^rlWLJ
|/| DP \A/FQT ATI
Mrr VVljI AIL
D 1
Z
o.y /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
TWF RF^T APAR
1 rlL DCj 1 MLMU
0 1
z
o.y /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
PPiRFTTA QPPiTT
LUKt 1 1 M jl^U 1 1
KA
z
J . / /o
ATI AMTA Dl IRI IP CfUnn
M 1 LMIM 1 A KUbLIU jLMUU
IAPI/QPiM Fl FK/IF
JMLIxoUlM LLLIVIL
1 HQ
lUo
A
3 70/
D.i/o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ OL^rlWLJ
MPiRMIMPI^inF F
IVI \J rx IN 1 NO j| UL L
1 ?fi
A
H
J.Z /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
ATI AMTA PHART
A 1 LAIM 1 M ^nAfA 1
1
1
D.\J /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL OL^rlWLJ
UPiPF Fl FMFMTA
rlUrL LLLIVILIM 1 A
JO
1
1
Z.o /b
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPlPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
pripf Minni F
rr\ILC IVIIUULL
" j
T
Z
Z.Z /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A r UdLIC jLMUU
c: i\yi i~ri— i fi fmfnt
jIVII 1 li LLLIVILIM 1
1 C\~)
1UZ
1
1
l.U /O
ATI AMTA Dl IPI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A KUbLIU jLMUU
DPAMhOM Fl FIV/IF
dKMIMUUIM LLLIVIL
mc
1U J
1
1
1 no/
l.U /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLI^ OL^rlWLJ
<u ittpim Minni F
jUI ILJIN IVIIUULL
111
111
1
1
U.J /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
Fill 1 ^IHF PPiNA
nlLLOIUL V^WINM
u.u /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP QPUPiPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL OL^rlWLJ
APQPFP PARTNF
ArXtr rMr\ 1 IML
A~)
U.U /o
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PWPlPi
M 1 LMIM 1 A rUDLIL jLnUU
m f I Cy \a r Pi r i-i Pi Pi n
IMLIVJrlDLJrxriLJLJU
A^
u
U.U /0
ATI AMTA PI IRI IP ^PHOO
M 1 LMI ^ 1 A r UDLIL II w w
PFMTFMMIAI PI
V-LIM 1 LIMIMIML r L
S7
n
\j
u.u /o
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
RIVERS ELEMEN
57
0
0.0%
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LIN ELEMENTAR
74
0
0.0%
529
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
flag_3SD
Flag_Z
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
1
RD
STATE AVERAGE
128,257
138,593
1.080588194
0
23
0
0
1
2
3
4
1 .4903398
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
1
LA
STATE AVERAGE
128,226
205,551
1.603036826
1.9473378
0
30
0
0
1
2
4
5
1.603C
1.94/3378
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
1
MA
STATE AVERAGE
1 28,434
224,507
1 .74803401
2.0489466
0
30
0
0
1
3
4
6
1 .74803401
2.0489466
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
2
RD
STATE AVERAGE
129,365
118,288
0.9143
1.381785
0
28
0
0
1
2
3
0.9143
1.381785
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
2
LA
STATE AVERAGE
129,328
170,610
1.319203885
1.7325901
0
43
0
0
1
2
3
4
1.319203885
1 ?3259l31
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
2
MA
STATE AVERAGE
1 29,540
223,945
2.04721 1
0
44
0
0
1
2
4
5
1.7287
2.047211
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
3
RD
STATE AVERAGE
128,837
151,060
1.172489269
1 .866421 1
0
35
0
0
1
2
3
4
1.172489269
1.8664211
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
3
LA
STATE AVERAGE
128,767
194,150
1 .5077
2.05317
0
37
0
0
1
2
4
5
1 .5077
2.05317
N/A
N/A
N/A
S l
3
MA
S '-•
1 29,046
241,822
1 .873'=
2.4330609
0
41
0
0
1
3
5
6
1.873S
2.4330609
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
4
RD
STATE AVERAGE
125,267
124,590
0.994595544
1 .6385729
0
36
0
0
1
3
4
0.994595544
1.6385729
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
4
LA
STATE AVERAGE
1 25,239
175,974
1.4051
2.0332046
0
41
0
0
1
2
4
5
1.4051
2.0332046
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
4
MA
STATE AVERAGE
1 25,470
235,186
1.874440105
2.4446497
0
47
0
0
1
3
5
6
1.874440105
2.4446497
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
s : A
5
RD
1 24,798
141 789
1.1361
1 .8284998
0
37
0
0
1
2
3
4
1.1361
1 .8284998
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
5
LA
STATE AVERAGE
1 24,744
178,967
1.434674213
2.0406349
0
34
0
0
1
2
4
5
1.434674213
2.0406349
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
5
MA
STATE AVERAGE
125,019
228,146
1 .8248
2.5360989
0
45
0
0
1
2
4
6
1 .8248
2.5360989
N/A
N/A
N/A
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
RD
BLACKMON V
13
66
5.076923077
3.5698165
1
12
1
3
4
9
9
12
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.320626
F
9.6682583
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
LA
BLACKMON V
13
54
4.153846154
2.0754981
0
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.22332
F
4.7228959
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
MA
BLACKMON V
13
73
5.615384615
3.3301267
1
12
2
3
6
7
11
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.452861
F
6.8054145
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
LA
HILLNEAL B
12
44
3.666666667
1.9694639
2
8
2
2
3
5
6
8
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.289481
F
3.6709724
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
MA
HILLNEAL B
12
44
3.666666667
3.4989176
0
11
0
1
3.5
5
9
11
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.522474
F
3.2437832
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
RD
JANSSEN K
14
35
2.5
2.2101166
0
7
0
1
2
4
5
7
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.275518
F
3.563585
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
LA
JANSSEN K
14
46
3.285714286
3.2682287
0
12
0
1
2
5
7
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.164381
F
3,233133/
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
MA
JANSSEN K
14
71
5.071428571
3.1246978
1
10
1
2
4.5
8
9
10
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
6.0689741
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
RD
MARBUARY
15
64
4.266666667
3.6344909
0
11
1
1
3
8
9
11
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.235
F
8.2797418
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
LA
MARBUARY
15
90
6
3.6055513
1
13
1
2
7
8
11
13
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.111438
F
8.7449465
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
1
MA
MARBUARY
15
77
5.133333333
3.6813559
1
12
1
1
5
8
10
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.335141
F
6.3989993
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
2
LA
SEBASTION 1
13
44
3.384615385
2.4677406
0
8
1
1
3
5
6
8
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.760806
F
4.2981587
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
3
RD
INGRAM S
14
44
3.142857143
5.5864829
0
17
0
0
0
6
13
17
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
3.9500419
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
3
LA
INGRAM S
14
72
5.142857143
4.2036091
0
13
1
2
3.5
9
10
13
1.507762082
2.05317
3.15396
F
6.624527
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
3
RD
ROBERTS K
7
26
3.714285714
3 683942
0
10
0
0
4
6
10
10
1.172489269
1.8664211
3.288812
F
3.6031319
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
4
RD
ADKINS B
14
55
3.928571429
2.2689979
1
9
1
3
3
5
7
9
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.308377
F
6.6996912
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
4
LA
ADKINS B
14
54
3.857142857
2.4133329
0
9
1
3
3
4
8
9
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.035296
F
4.5124254
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
4
LA
OLIVER D
14
75
5.357142857
7.4689835
0
28
0
1
3
7
12
28
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.035296
F
7.2728393
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
5
RD
FULLENWIDERC
19
63
3.315789474
3.11 00667
0
12
1
1
2
5
9
12
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
F
5.1959738
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ADAMSVILLE EL
5
LA
FULLENWIDERC
19
59
3.105263158
3.1604278
0
11
0
1
2
3
10
11
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.839135
F
3.5684621
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
1
RD
MEADOWS
17
64
3.764705882
2.8620231
0
9
0
2
3
6
8
9
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.16497
F
7.4257566
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
1
LA
MEADOWS
17
101
5.941176471
3 399827
0
12
0
4
7
9
9
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
9.1851592
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
1
MA
MEADOWS
17
75
4.411764706
2.1811357
1
8
2
2
5
6
7
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
5.3602388
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
2
MA
DAVIS
18
60
3.333333333
1 7149859
0
7
1
2
3
5
5
7
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
3.3252954
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
2
RD
FOWLER
17
55
3.235294118
2.2784153
0
8
1
2
3
4
8
8
0.914374058
1.381785
1.91977
F
6.9253892
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
2
LA
FOWLER
17
72
4.235294118
2.5132004
0
9
0
3
4
5
8
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.579848
F
6.9395227
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
2
MA
FOWLER
17
94
5.529411765
3.2809611
0
12
2
3
6
8
9
12
1.728771036
2.047211
3.218336
F
7.6545327
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
2
RD
LONG
15
91
6.066666667
2.8401878
2
12
2
4
6
8
10
12
0.914374058
1.381785
1.9847
F
14.44128
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
2
LA
LONG
15
104
6.933333333
3.0347197
2
12
2
5
6
10
11
12
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
12.549668
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
2
MA
LONG
15
126
8.4
3.7758632
1
14
4
6
9
11
14
14
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
12.620858
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
3
RD
LITTLE
19
84
4.421052632
2 9309799
0
10
1
2
4
6
10
10
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.457048
F
7.5867978
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
3
LA
LITTLE
19
69
3.631578947
2.8908001
0
9
1
1
3
5
9
9
1.507762082
2.05317
2.920851
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
3
MA
LITTLE
19
97
5.105263158
2.9794619
1
12
1
3
5
7
9
12
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.548468
F
5.789043
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
3
RD
ROSS
20
51
2.55
2.2354795
0
7
0
1
2
4
6
6.5
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.424523
F
3.3006567
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
3
LA
ROSS
20
58
2.9
2.1496634
0
7
0
1
2.5
4.5
6
6.5
1.507762082
2.05317
2.88507
F
3.0325191
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
3
MA
ROSS
20
134
6.7
2.6576602
1
12
3
5
7
8
10
12
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.506068
L F
8.8706706
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
3
RD
U PSHAW
16
108
6.75
3.5496479
1
15
2
4.5
6.5
9
12
15
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
11.953381
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
3
LA
U PSHAW
16
97
6.0625
3 1084562
2
15
3
3.5
6
7.5
8
15
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
8.8735718
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
3
MA
U PSHAW
16
66
4.125
2.5265259
0
10
2
2
4
5.5
8
10
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
3.7008183
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
fl.ig_.1SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
4
MA
AKINS
17
69
4.058823529
4.9808457
0
20
0
1
2
6
9
20
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.653184
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
4
MA
HUMPHRIES
17
81
4.764705882
3.1130654
0
12
1
4
5
6
10
12
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.653184
F
4.8746742
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
5
RD
VARNADO
15
153
10.2
5.0596443
4
18
4
5
10
15
18
18
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.552498
F
19.198333
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BEECHER HILLS
5
LA
VARNADO
15
137
9.133333333
5.1251016
1
19
2
6
9
12
16
19
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.015343
F
14,61152
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
1
RD
KIRK
16
46
2.875
2.8722813
0
10
0
0.5
2.5
4
7
10
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.198343
F
4.8161145
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
1
LA
KIRK
16
81
5.0625
2 9545163
1
10
1
3
4.5
8
9
10
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
7.106036
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
1
MA
KIRK
16
82
5.125
3.8275318
1
15
2
3
4
5.5
13
15
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
6.5925896
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
3
RD
EVANS
15
147
9.8
4.1952354
2
17
3
8
10
13
16
17
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
17.902822
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
3
LA
EVANS
15
49
3.266666667
2.1865389
0
7
1
1
3
5
6
7
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
3...!-' 7*6/'
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
3
MA
EVANS
15
159
10.6
4 548155
4
21
5
8
10
12
19
21
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
13.890305
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
3
RD
RHODES
15
133
8.866666667
6.0576595
1
20
2
3
8
15
15
20
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
15.966076
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
3
MA
RHODES
15
134
8.933333333
6.7238028
0
24
1
1
10
13
15
24
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
11.23728
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
3
RD
SMITH C
14
160
11.42857143
7 3768274
2
28
3
4
10
17
20
28
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
20.560604
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
3
LA
SMITH C
14
45
3.214285714
2.3916062
0
7
1
1
3
5
7
7
1.507762082
2.05317
3.15396
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
3
MA
SMITH C
14
216
15.42857143
7.7926423
2
27
3
9
16
21
25
27
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.82471
F
20.844878
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
4
RD
BENTEEN
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0.994595544
1.6385729
5.910314
F
4.8855955
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
4
RD
BONDS
18
131
7.277777778
3 357267
3
15
4
4
6.5
10
12
15
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
16.268598
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
4
LA
BONDS
18
185
10.27777778
3.5447651
6
17
6
7
9.5
12
17
17
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.842798
F
18.514399
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
4
MA
BONDS
18
186
10.33333333
5.2803743
4
23
5
7
9
12
20
23
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.603069
F
14.68024
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
4
RD
DIMES SMITH
18
55
3.055555556
3.1710496
0
10
0
1
2
4
10
10
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
5.3362976
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
4
LA
DIMES SMITH
18
56
3.111111111
3.1038664
0
11
0
1
2
4
9
11
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.842798
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
5
RD
PAU LK
18
163
9.055555556
5.9948235
2
26
2
4
8
13
16
26
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.429093
F
18.375283
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
5
LA
PAU LK
18
98
5.444444444
5.5223846
0
17
0
2
3.5
9
17
17
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.877621
F
8.3366281
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
5
RD
VACTER
18
194
10.77777778
4.9652386
0
19
5
8
12
13
17
19
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.429093
F
22,37133
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
5
LA
VACTER
18
232
12.88888889
5.6139416
1
22
4
9
15
17
19
22
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.877621
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENTEEN ELEME
5
MA
VACTER
18
178
9.888888889
9.5232773
0
30
0
2
5.5
18
25
30
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.618183
F
13.490265
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
1
MA
PRYOR
14
50
3.571428571
2.4405008
1
10
1
1
4
5
5
10
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
3.3297684
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
1
RD
RUCKER
13
35
2.692307692
1.8432135
0
5
0
1
3
4
5
5
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.320626
F
3.8992029
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
1
LA
THOMAS
8
46
5.75
1.9820624
2
9
2
5
6
6.5
9
9
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.6685
F
6.0232914
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
1
MA
THOMAS
8
40
5
2.9760952
1
9
1
2.5
5
7.5
9
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.92127
F
4.4891111
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
2
LA
GARDNER
17
55
3.235294118
2 077541
1
9
1
2
3
4
7
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.579848
F
4.5597874
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
2
MA
GARDNER
17
62
3.647058824
2.2344232
0
8
1
2
4
5
7
8
1.728771036
2.047211
3.218336
F
3.8634529
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
2
MA
STAN LEY
17
68
4
2 5
0
8
0
3
5
6
7
8
1.728771036
2.047211
3.218336
F
4.5742804
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
3
RD
JOHNSON
14
64
4.571428571
3.4354327
0
12
1
2
3.5
7
9
12
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
6.813932
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
3
MA
JOHNSON
14
55
3.928571429
2.9733246
0
9
0
1
3.5
6
8
9
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.82471
F
3,159/225
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
3
MA
WILSON
15
59
3.933333333
2.3744674
1
10
1
2
4
5
7
10
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
3.278204
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
4
LA
COVERSON
16
56
3.5
3.4058773
0
9
0
0
2.5
7
8
9
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
4.121365
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
4
LA
CURTIS
16
50
3.125
3.5378901
0
12
1
1
2
4
11
12
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
3.3836134
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
4
RD
FIELDS
17
40
2.352941176
2 498529
0
8
0
0
2
4
6
8
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
3.4179758
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
4
RD
RATTLER
16
55
3.4375
2.3084988
0
9
0
2
3
5
6
9
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
F
5.9634928
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
4
LA
RATTLER
16
60
3.75
2.32379
0
7
0
2
4
6
7
7
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
4. 61 3! 995
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
4
MA
RATTLER
16
68
4.25
2 236068
0
8
1
2.5
4.5
5.5
7
8
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.707927
F
3.8869534
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
5
LA
ALVAN
16
52
3.25
3.5496479
0
11
0
1
2
4.5
11
11
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
3.5583549
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BETHUNE ELEME
5
LA
COSTON
15
46
3.066666667
5.0492809
0
19
0
0
2
3
10
19
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.015343
F
3.0974083
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
B LA LOCK ELEME
1
MA
C HUNT
13
56
4.307692308
4 069902
0
14
1
1
4
5
10
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.452861
F
4.5042556
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
B LA LOCK ELEME
1
RD
M GACHETT
9
27
3
3 6400549
0
11
0
0
2
4
11
11
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.570928
F
3.8637063
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
1
LA
M GACHETT
9
64
7.111111111
4.0138649
3
15
3
4
7
9
15
15
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.550375
F
8.4855451
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
1
MA
M GACHETT
9
72
8
3.8078866
0
12
0
6
9
11
12
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.795981
F
9.1539223
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
2
RD
C MOMPOINT
7
22
3.142857143
3.1320159
0
9
0
1
2
5
9
9
0.914374058
1.381785
2.481171
F
4.2869534
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
2
LA
N OKEKE
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1.319203885
1.7325901
6.516974
F
3.8559589
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
3
RD
A HUNTER
12
178
14.83333333
3.7376058
10
24
10
13
15
16
18
24
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.788857
F
25.354703
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
3
LA
A HUNTER
12
172
14.33333333
6.0952043
7
27
8
9.5
14
19
20
27
1.507762082
2.05317
3.285859
F
21.639261
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
3
MA
A HUNTER
12
223
18.58333333
8 1515011
6
32
7
13
19
23
30
32
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.981013
F
23.79024
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
3
RD
P THURMOND
5
55
11
5.1478151
3
17
3
10
12
13
17
17
1.172489269
1.8664211
3.676556
F
11.773861
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f«30L.3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
B LA LOCK ELEME
3
LA
P THURMOND
5
55
11
4.3011626
5
16
5
9
11
14
16
16
1.507762082
2.05317
4.262379
F
10,33781.1
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
B LA LOCK ELEME
3
MA
P THURMOND
5
75
15
8 093207
1
22
1
17
17
18
22
22
1.873920927
2.4330609
5.138215
F
12.063325
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
3
RD
T MAR HALL
7
82
11.71428571
6 074929
2
20
2
8
10
17
20
20
1.172489269
1.8664211
3.288812
F
14.943558
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
3
LA
T MAR HALL
7
72
10.28571429
7.8254773
1
19
1
2
10
19
19
19
1.507762082
2.05317
3.835838
F
11.311425
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
3
MA
T MAR HALL
7
90
12.85714286
4.0178175
5
17
5
11
13
16
17
17
1.873920927
2.4330609
4.632753
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
4
RD
J GRAVES
14
66
4.714285714
4 4795015
0
13
0
1
3.5
9
12
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.308377
F
S.4938583
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
4
LA
J G RAVES
14
80
5.714285714
4.5476718
0
16
0
3
5.5
9
10
16
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.035296
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
4
RD
S FLOOD
14
134
9.571428571
6.5364574
0
19
0
2
10
15
17
19
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.308377
F
19.585073
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
4
LA
S FLOOD
14
153
10.92857143
7.7901741
0
30
1
7
10
15
19
30
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.035296
F
17.525805
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
4
MA
S FLOOD
14
147
10.5
8.5282337
0
25
1
4
9.5
19
23
25
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.83452
F
13.201846
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
5
RD
D JEFFERSON
16
178
11.125
4.8287334
3
21
4
8
12
14
16
21
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
21.85147
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
5
LA
D JEFFERSON
16
179
11.1875
4.6363599
3
23
7
8.5
10
14
17
23
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
19.117238
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
5
MA
D JEFFERSON
16
417
26.0625
9 3628254
11
41
12
20
27
35
36
41
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
38.228176
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
5
RD
S BOYD
12
118
9.833333333
5.5404846
0
20
5
7
8.5
14
17
20
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.719675
F
16.47686
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
5
LA
S BOYD
12
168
14
9.8534719
0
28
2
4.5
15
23
25
28
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.201916
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BLALOCK ELEME
5
MA
S BOYD
12
294
24.5
14 317821
0
45
3
16
29
35
39
45
1.824890617
2.5360989
4.021217
F
30.972326
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
1
RD
DATCHER
21
63
3
2.4494897
0
8
0
1
3
5
6
8
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.056245
F
5.9019089
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
1
LA
DATCHER
21
120
5.714285714
4.3605373
0
16
1
3
5
8
11
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.877869
F
9.6748027
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
1
MA
DATCHER
21
88
4.19047619
2.7680146
0
8
0
3
4
6
8
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.089384
F
5.462649
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
1
LA
POWELL
23
65
2.826086957
2.2084996
0
7
0
1
2
4
7
7
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.821181
F
3.0120826
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
1
MA
POWELL
23
83
3.608695652
3.0111781
0
11
0
1
3
6
8
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.029739
F
4.3551256
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
2
LA
LUCKY
19
65
3.421052632
2.5014616
0
10
0
2
3
5
7
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
5.2878904
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
2
LA
TOMPKINS
19
58
3.052631579
2.6346765
0
11
1
1
2
4
7
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
4.3610063
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
2
MA
TOMPKINS
19
88
4.631578947
3.1659741
0
12
1
2
4
7
9
12
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
6.1806265
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
2
RD
WOODS
19
67
3.526315789
2.3656904
0
8
0
2
3
6
7
8
0.914374058
1.381785
1.865384
F
8.2394804
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
2
LA
WOODS
19
61
3.210526316
1.7184925
0
7
1
2
3
4
6
7
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
4.7582423
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOLTON AC A DEM
2
MA
WOODS
19
98
5.157894737
4 537047
0
16
0
1
4
8
13
16
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
7.3012523
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
1
RD
DEBORAH JONES
3
12
4
3.6055513
0
7
0
0
5
7
7
7
1.080588194
1.4903398
3.661932
F
3.39288/
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
1
LA
DEBORAH JONES
3
17
5.666666667
3.5118846
2
9
2
2
6
9
9
9
1.603036826
1.9473378
4.975925
F
3.6143772
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
1
MA
DEBORAH JONES
3
22
7.333333333
1.5275252
6
9
6
6
7
9
9
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
5.296914
F
4.7214614
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
1
LA
GAY NASH
16
55
3.4375
3 669128
0
12
0
0
3.5
4.5
9
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
1
MA
GAY NASH
16
155
9.6875
5.1603456
1
20
3
6.5
10
13
17
20
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
15.499606
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
1
LA
LATITA DREW
17
75
4.411764706
2.2654697
0
7
0
4
5
6
7
7
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
5.94693
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
1
MA
LATITA DREW
17
67
3.941176471
2.3577157
1
8
1
2
4
6
8
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
4.4132717
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
1
RD
TIFFANY HOLLIS
17
86
5.058823529
3 648126
0
12
1
2
6
7
11
12
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.16497
F
11.006003
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
1
LA
TIFFANY HOLLIS
17
132
7.764705882
4.8929722
2
18
2
5
5
11
16
18
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
'i-
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
1
MA
TIFFANY HOLLIS
17
152
8.941176471
3 648126
2
15
4
6
10
12
14
15
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
14.474797
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
RD
CHALITA BISHOP
12
105
8.75
6 032111
0
23
4
5
7
12
15
23
0.914374058
1.381785
2.111035
F
19.643726
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
LA
CHALITA BISHOP
12
152
12.66666667
7 3154051
1
28
5
9.5
12
16
23
28
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.819671
F
22.687862
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
MA
CHALITA BISHOP
12
186
15.5
6.7890286
2
24
7
12
16
22
23
24
1.728771036
2.047211
3.501708
F
23.302404
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
RD
RHONDA NELSON
14
64
4.571428571
3 321591
1
13
1
2
4
6
8
13
0.914374058
1.381785
2.022267
F
9.9027313
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
LA
RHONDA NELSON
14
47
3.357142857
3.1282126
0
8
0
0
2.5
6
7
8
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.708366
F
4.4010811
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
MA
RHONDA NELSON
14
75
5.357142857
3 201133
0
10
2
3
4.5
8
10
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.370191
F
6.6315218
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
RD
SHANAY BENTON
13
66
5.076923077
3 174417
0
10
2
3
4
8
10
10
0.914374058
1.381785
2.064089
F
10.861519
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
LA
SHANAY BENTON
13
62
4.769230769
3.9613518
0
15
0
2
5
6
7
15
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.760806
F
7.1795684
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
MA
SHANAY BENTON
13
71
5.461538462
4 370648
0
13
0
2
3
8
11
13
1.728771036
2.047211
3.432154
F
6.5741561
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
RD
SHANELLE CLARK
14
40
2.857142857
2 769536
0
9
0
1
2
5
6
9
0.914374058
1.381785
2.022267
F
5.2607138
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
2
LA
SHANELLE CLARK
14
43
3.071428571
2 867974
0
10
0
1
3
4
7
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.708366
F
3.7840598
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
3
RD
CHAVONNE MCCORM
20
125
6.25
3.7257991
0
13
1.5
4
5
10
11
12
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.424523
F
12.166235
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
3
LA
CHAVONNE MCCORM
20
112
5.6
3.3779471
0
13
1
3.5
6
7
10
12
1.507762082
2.05317
2.88507
F
8.9135552
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
3
MA
CHAVONNE MCCORM
20
132
6.6
4.2102631
0
16
1
4
6.5
9
13
15
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.506068
L F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
3
RD
TIFFANY MOMON
24
67
2.791666667
2.4668087
0
10
0
1
2.5
4.5
5
6
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.315434
F
4.2500146
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
3
LA
TIFFANY MOMON
24
119
4.958333333
3 8275792
0
16
0
2
4
7.5
9
11
1.507762082
2.05317
2.765067
F
8.2332576
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
3
MA
TIFFANY MOMON
24
84
3.5
2 431675
0
9
0
2
4
5
6
8
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.36386
F
3.2741178
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
4
RD
PAMELA EVERETT
13
57
4.384615385
3.2025631
0
11
2
2
4
5
10
11
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.357971
F
7.4594729
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
5
LA
AMZIE SAMUE LS
16
55
3.4375
2.42126
0
10
1
2
3
4
6
10
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
3.9258875
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
5
RD
DAVID ARCHIBALD
16
43
2.6875
1.8518009
0
5
0
0.5
3
4
5
5
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
3.3937185
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
5
LA
DAVID ARCHIBALD
16
70
4.375
4.0967467
0
14
0
1.5
3
7.5
10
14
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
5.7635509
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BOYD ELEMENTA
5
MA
DAVID ARCHIBALD
16
74
4.625
3.5753788
0
12
0
2
5
7
11
12
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
!
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BRANDON ELEME
3
MA
VISEL
16
67
4.1875
3 8508657
0
13
1
1
4
6
12
13
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
3.8035695
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BURGESS PETER
1
LA
JACKSON
14
54
3.857142857
2.9834709
0
11
1
2
3.5
5
8
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.164381
F
4.3310885
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BURGESS PETER
1
MA
JACKSON
14
83
5.928571429
3.2925157
2
12
3
4
4.5
9
12
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BURGESS PETER
3
LA
WATTS
17
70
4.117647059
2.7812397
0
10
1
2
4
6
8
10
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
5.2410815
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
1
MA
MANLEY N
2
15
7.5
6 363961
3
12
3
3
7.5
12
12
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
6.094506
F
3.9700929
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
1
RD
WBROWN A
15
40
2.666666667
1.9880596
0
7
0
1
2
4
6
7
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.235
F
4.1217818
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
3
RD
BLYTHERS K
15
131
8.733333333
4.0789821
3
19
4
6
9
11
13
19
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
15.689398
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
3
LA
BLYTHERS K
15
174
11.6
5 2345009
1
22
5
8
12
14
17
22
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
19.037425
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
3
MA
BLYTHERS K
15
144
9.6
5.0398413
1
18
5
6
8
15
17
18
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
12.29849
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
3
RD
GORMAN U
13
93
7.153846154
2.9110752
2
11
3
6
7
9
11
11
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.725445
F
11.554782
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
3
LA
GORMAN U
13
96
7.384615385
6.1851767
1
20
1
2
6
11
16
20
1.507762082
2.05317
3.216103
F
10.320283
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
3
MA
GORMAN U
13
66
5.076923077
6.5633012
0
21
0
1
2
10
12
21
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.89835
F
4.7465267
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
4
LA
CU RRY M
22
66
3
3.4503278
0
14
0
0
2.5
5
6
8
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.705547
F
3.6792749
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
5
RD
DANSO A
5
25
5
1
4
6
4
4
5
6
6
6
1.136148015
1.8284998
3.589338
F
4.7250953
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
5
LA
DANSO A
5
40
8
4.6368092
0
12
0
9
9
10
12
12
1.434674213
2.0406349
4.172473
F
7.1940917
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
5
MA
DANSO A
5
46
9.2
4.3817805
3
15
3
8
9
11
15
15
1.824890617
2.5360989
5.227424
F
8.5026035
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
5
RD
SLACK M
22
240
10.90909091
5.2816762
2
21
5
6
10
16
17
18
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.30566
F
25.069276
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
5
LA
SLACK M
22
173
7.863636364
4.3675803
0
14
3
4
8
12
13
13
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.739869
F
14.777021
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
C W HILL ELEM
5
MA
SLACK M
22
174
7.909090909
5.5798028
0
18
1
4
7
12
16
16
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.446985
F
11.25249
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
1
RD
JONES
18
65
3.611111111
2.1458274
0
8
1
2
3.5
5
7
8
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.134418
F
7.203793
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
1
LA
JONES
18
85
4.722222222
3.2322921
1
11
1
2
4.5
8
9
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.980013
F
6.7957304
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
1
MA
JONES
18
146
8.111111111
4.1286501
1
17
2
5
8
11
13
17
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
13.175673
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
1
RD
ROBERTSON
17
96
5.647058824
2.2622217
2
12
3
5
5
6
9
12
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.16497
F
12.633388
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
1
LA
ROBERTSON
17
133
7.823529412
3.1471275
4
15
4
6
7
10
12
15
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
1 0
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
1
MA
ROBERTSON
17
147
8.647058824
3 723929
3
17
5
6
8
12
13
17
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
13.882943
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
2
RD
LONGINO
19
48
2.526315789
2.8745709
0
11
0
1
2
3
8
11
0.914374058
1.381785
1.865384
F
5.0849382
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
2
LA
LONGINO
19
94
4.947368421
3.2399191
1
12
1
2
4
7
9
12
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
9.1278387
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
2
MA
LONGINO
19
119
6.263157895
5.1837578
0
19
0
3
6
9
18
19
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
2
LA
MORELAND
10
40
4
3.4318767
0
11
0
1
3.5
6
9
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.962883
F
4.8929183
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
3
RD
GOODMAN
12
83
6.916666667
3.2039275
2
11
3
4.5
6.5
10
11
11
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.788857
F
10.661267
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
3
LA
GOODMAN
12
104
8.666666667
2.8391206
4
12
4
7
8.5
11
12
12
1.507762082
2.05317
3.285859
F
12.07848
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
3
MA
GOODMAN
12
120
10
3.8376129
3
18
7
8
9.5
12
15
18
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.981013
F
11.569609
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
3
RD
JACKSON
15
88
5.866666667
4.5960646
1
17
1
2
5
7
14
17
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
9.7408195
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
3
LA
JACKSON
15
99
6.6
5 4615539
2
23
2
2
5
9
11
23
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
9.6057085
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
3
MA
JACKSON
15
126
8.4
3.8877096
2
15
4
6
8
12
14
15
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
3
RD
ROSS
16
109
6.8125
3.6736676
2
14
3
3.5
6.5
8.5
13
14
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
12.087328
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
3
LA
ROSS
16
149
9.3125
5.0162237
1
17
1
5.5
11
13
15
17
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
15.205244
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
3
MA
ROSS
16
228
14.25
4.6547467
8
25
9
11
13
19
19
25
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
20.346518
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
4
RD
HUMMINGS
22
154
7
4.2426407
1
18
1
4
7
9
11
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.04263
F
17.190473
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
4
LA
HUMMINGS
22
141
6.409090909
4.0901635
0
17
2
4
6
9
11
12
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.705547
F
11 543734
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
4
MA
HUMMINGS
22
238
10.81818182
5 9971133
1
23
3
6
12
16
18
18
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.438043
F
17.159868
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
4
RD
WRIGHT
12
59
4.916666667
3.4761089
0
14
2
3
4.5
6
7
14
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.413641
F
8.2916376
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
4
LA
WRIGHT
12
50
4.166666667
2.7906771
0
10
1
2
4
6
6
10
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.165912
F
4.7050498
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
4
MA
WRIGHT
12
104
8.666666667
5.0692179
2
16
2
3.5
9
12
16
16
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.991569
F
9.6246766
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
5
RD
BENNETT
13
107
8.230769231
4.7108712
0
15
4
5
7
11
15
15
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.657552
F
13.983622
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
5
LA
BENNETT
13
78
6
3.8297084
0
11
1
3
6
9
11
11
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.132585
[ F
8.06637
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
5
MA
BENNETT
13
178
13.69230769
4.2892232
6
20
7
12
14
17
18
20
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.935052
F
16.87181
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
5
RD
PIRTLE
16
139
8.6875
4 9493266
1
17
2
6
7
13
16
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
16.51923
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
5
LA
PIRTLE
16
90
5.625
3.4229617
2
14
3
3
4.5
7.5
11
14
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
8.2137687
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
5
MA
PIRTLE
16
152
9.5
5.4283208
2
20
4
5
8.5
14
18
20
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
12.105378
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
5
RD
SMILEY
16
122
7.625
4.9514308
1
16
2
4
6.5
11
16
16
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
14.19492
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
5
LA
SMILEY
16
79
4.9375
3.5490609
0
13
2
2.5
4
7.5
10
13
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
6.8661489
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CAPITOL VIEW
5
MA
SMILEY
16
170
10.625
6.0759087
1
21
3
5.5
12
16
18
21
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
13.879757
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
1
MA
GREER K
14
67
4.785714286
3.9258232
0
14
1
2
4
7
10
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
5.5472208
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
1
MA
MEAD 1
14
55
3.928571429
2 6736401
1
11
2
2
3.5
5
7
11
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
3.9819603
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
1
MA
WILLIAMSON C
13
56
4.307692308
3.3760089
0
9
0
2
4
7
9
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.452861
F
4.5042556
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
2
LA
AUGUSTIN E
14
43
3.071428571
2.0177781
0
6
1
1
3
5
6
6
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.708366
F
3.7840598
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
2
MA
AUGUSTIN E
14
58
4.142857143
3.7180877
0
12
0
1
3
7
9
12
1.728771036
2.047211
3.370191
F
4.412189/
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
2
RD
CONNER M
14
35
2.5
1.6525039
0
7
1
1
3
3
3
7
0.914374058
1.381785
2.022267
F
4.2936269
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
2
LA
CONNER M
14
47
3.357142857
2.1342317
1
7
1
2
3
5
7
7
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.708366
F
4.4010811
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
3
RD
DAVI D K
16
59
3.6875
2.70108
1
11
1
2
3
5
7
11
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
5.3900178
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
3
LA
DAVI D K
16
71
4.4375
3 4052655
0
12
0
2
4
6.5
9
12
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
5.7077356
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
3
MA
DAVI D K
16
64
4
2.7808871
0
9
1
2
3
7
8
9
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
3.4953158
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
3
RD
MILLINES V
15
44
2.933333333
2.1201977
0
6
0
1
3
5
6
6
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
3.653902
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
3
LA
MILLINES V
15
48
3.2
2.5128243
0
9
0
2
2
5
7
9
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
3.1921415
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
4
RD
MOLOCK A
16
97
6.0625
6.2446644
0
22
0
1.5
4
9
17
22
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
F
12.371508
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
4
LA
MOLOCK A
16
60
3.75
2.7202941
0
10
0
2
3
5.5
7
10
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
4,6131985
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
4
MA
MOLOCK A
16
68
4.25
3.7148351
0
12
0
2
3.5
5
11
12
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.707927
F
3.8869534
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
4
RD
ROBINSON M
15
37
2.466666667
1.3020131
1
6
1
2
2
3
4
6
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.263829
F
3.4794344
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
4
RD
YOUNGE A
18
113
6.277777778
3.6105329
0
12
1
4
7
8
12
12
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
13.679369
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
4
LA
YOUNGE A
18
72
4
2.9704426
0
9
1
2
3
6
9
9
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.842798
F
5.4H/0t-1
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CASCADE ELEME
4
MA
YOUNGE A
18
70
3.888888889
3.8177432
0
17
1
1
3
5
6
17
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.603069
F
3.4960356
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CHARLES R DRE
2
RD
WACHTMEISTER
18
44
2.444444444
1.8541598
0
6
0
1
2.5
4
5
6
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
4.6979372
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CHARLES R DRE
2
LA
WACHTMEISTER
18
56
3.111111111
2.44682
0
8
1
1
2
5
7
8
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
4.3878922
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CHARLES R DRE
2
MA
WACHTMEISTER
18
74
4.111111111
2.2462751
1
8
1
3
4
6
8
8
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
*W<6£ ?
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
1
LA
BAR N ETT
15
59
3.933333333
2.3135213
0
7
1
2
4
6
7
7
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.111438
F
4.6346348
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
1
MA
BAR NETT
15
65
4.333333333
2.5819889
1
10
1
2
4
7
7
10
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.335141
F
4.8868142
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
1
RD
HARRIS
18
87
4.833333333
3.7612576
0
14
1
2
4
7
11
14
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.134418
F
10.683167
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
1
MA
SALES
18
64
3.555555556
2.8946649
0
10
0
1
3
6
7
10
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
3.7427352
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
2
LA
MARSHALL
15
43
2.866666667
2.6956755
0
8
0
1
2
6
6
8
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
2
RD
SIMMS
18
49
2.722222222
2.1366702
0
8
1
1
2
5
5
8
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
5.5508277
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
2
LA
SIMMS
18
54
3
1.7489493
0
6
1
1
3
4
6
6
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
4.1158114
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
2
MA
SIMMS
18
80
4.444444444
3.1290333
1
13
1
2
4
6
9
13
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
5.6279625
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
2
RD
WILLIAMS
19
62
3.263157895
2.6633752
0
9
0
1
2
5
9
9
0.914374058
1.381785
1.865384
F
7.4093377
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
2
MA
WILLIAMS
19
156
8.210526316
4.2108187
3
21
5
5
7
9
16
21
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
13.800882
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
3
MA
CARSO
19
71
3.736842105
2 181796
0
9
2
2
3
5
8
9
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.548468
F
3.3374772
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
3
RD
JONES
16
51
3.1875
3.4490337
0
13
0
1
2
3.5
8
13
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
4.3184483
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
3
LA
JONES
16
76
4.75
4 0906397
0
13
0
1.5
4.5
7
12
13
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
6.3165503
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
3
RD
YOUNG
14
64
4.571428571
3 227628
0
12
1
2
4.5
6
9
12
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
6.813932
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
3
LA
YOUNG
14
63
4.5
2.9547875
1
10
1
2
4
7
9
10
1.507762082
2.05317
3.15396
F
5.4529966
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
3
MA
YOUNG
14
66
4.714285714
2.7576069
1
10
1
3
4
6
10
10
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.82471
F
4.3680254
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
5
RD
JOHNSON
23
110
4.782608696
2 627763
0
10
1
3
4
7
8
10
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
9.5640215
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CLEVELAND ELE
5
MA
JOHNSON
23
79
3.434782609
3.4879805
0
14
0
1
3
5
7
10
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.41133
F
3.0443492
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
1
RD
HARBOUR D
18
51
2.833333333
1.7904978
0
6
0
2
2.5
4
5
6
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.134418
F
4.9896458
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
1
LA
HARBOUR D
18
78
4.333333333
4 5114234
0
15
0
1
2.5
9
10
15
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.980013
F
5.948463
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
1
MA
HARBOUR D
18
76
4.222222222
3.1352935
0
10
0
1
4
7
9
10
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
5.123165
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
1
MA
HASSAN V
18
121
6.722222222
3.8010147
0
14
1
4
6.5
9
12
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
10.299777
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
1
LA
SANDERS A
16
63
3.9375
4.3736903
0
13
0
1
1.5
6
12
13
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
4.7951889
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
1
MA
SANDERS A
16
71
4.4375
3.2857013
0
14
1
2.5
3.5
6
7
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
5.2504365
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
2
RD
BAILEYS
15
30
2
1.6035675
0
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.914374058
1.381785
1.9847
F
3.0428839
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
2
LA
BAILEYS
15
40
2.666666667
2.7429563
0
10
0
1
2
4
6
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
3.0126808
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
2
MA
BAILEYS
15
66
4.4
2 8233718
0
8
1
1
5
7
8
8
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
5.0535218
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
2
MA
PHARR V
16
58
3.625
5.7951129
0
22
0
0
1.5
4.5
12
22
1.728771036
2.047211
3.264179
F
3.7049996
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
2
RD
ROFIE
17
79
4.647058824
4.2857493
1
16
1
2
3
5
12
16
0.914374058
1.381785
1.91977
F
11.1 3 '«1
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
2
LA
ROFIE
17
53
3.117647059
2.8036216
0
10
0
1
2
5
7
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.579848
F
4.2798186
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
2
MA
ROFIE
17
126
7.411764706
4 542285
1
17
1
3
8
10
12
17
1.728771036
2.047211
3.218336
F
11.445612
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
2
RD
WILSON L
15
88
5.866666667
4.3402875
0
14
0
3
6
8
12
14
0.914374058
1.381785
1.9847
F
13.880703
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
2
LA
WILSON L
15
56
3.733333333
3.3904628
0
10
0
1
3
6
9
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
5.3964774
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
2
MA
WILSON L
15
140
9.333333333
7 0373155
0
23
0
1
10
15
16
23
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
14.38657
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
RD
MCCLOUD R
17
159
9.352941176
6.9096054
0
26
3
4
8
14
21
26
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
18.071414
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
LA
MCCLOUD R
17
138
8.117647059
5.0359005
0
15
1
5
8
12
15
15
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
•
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
MA
MCCLOUD R
17
198
11.64705882
8.8100878
0
27
0
5
11
20
23
27
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
16.561723
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
RD
PAULA
14
119
8.5
6.3700018
1
23
1
3
7
13
15
23
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
14.68963
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
LA
PAULA
14
129
9.214285714
6.3509972
1
20
3
4
6.5
14
19
20
1.507762082
2.05317
3.15396
F
14.04422
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
MA
PAULA
14
173
12.35714286
7.1855319
1
23
2
7
15
17
23
23
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.82471
F
16.121514
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
RD
SYLVESTER M
15
105
7
2 0701967
2
10
5
6
7
9
9
10
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
12.092583
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
LA
SYLVESTER M
15
98
6.533333333
2.8250579
1
11
3
5
7
8
10
11
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
MA
SYLVESTER M
15
80
5.333333333
2.8702082
2
11
3
3
4
7
11
11
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
5.5067453
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
RD
WILLIAMS R
15
217
14.46666667
9.1485102
2
35
3
6
14
22
24
35
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
27.586555
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
LA
WILLIAMS R
15
224
14.93333333
9.5876905
4
29
5
6
13
26
29
29
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
25.325235
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
3
MA
WILLIAMS R
15
245
16.33333333
7.6966288
2
28
4
11
17
24
27
28
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
23.016713
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
RD
BRAMWELLG
19
85
4.473684211
3 339468
0
14
1
2
4
7
8
14
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.122339
F
9.2550022
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
LA
BRAMWELLG
19
58
3.052631579
2 120631
0
6
0
2
3
5
6
6
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.804453
F
3.5320597
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
MA
BRAMWELLG
19
108
5.684210526
3.2154597
0
11
1
2
6
9
9
11
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.556963
F
8,7929585
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
RD
BUTLER P
15
140
9.333333333
5.0943479
2
18
2
5
11
12
17
18
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.263829
F
19.709707
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
LA
BUTLER P
15
152
10.13333333
6.4127848
0
25
5
6
8
13
20
25
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.980019
F
16.626109
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
MA
BUTLER P
15
174
11.6
6.6203151
3
25
4
6
11
17
22
25
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.768058
F
15.407905
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
RD
FULFORD
19
142
7.473684211
4.2865218
0
14
2
3
8
12
13
14
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.122339
F
17.235542
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
LA
FULFORD
19
123
6.473684211
5.3579476
0
21
0
3
6
9
14
21
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.804453
F
10.866306
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
MA
FULFORD
19
152
8
5.9066817
0
24
1
3
8
10
16
24
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.556963
F
10.922095
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
RD
KING T
2
18
9
12 727922
0
18
0
0
9
18
18
18
0.994595544
1.6385729
4.470534
F
6.9092754
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
LA
KING T
2
22
11
15 556349
0
22
0
0
11
22
22
22
1.405105438
2.0332046
5.718184
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
MA
KING T
2
23
11.5
12 020815
3
20
3
3
12
20
20
20
1.874440105
2.4446497
7.060325
F
5.5683222
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
RD
TAYLOR D
15
123
8.2
6.0142687
0
17
0
2
7
14
15
17
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.263829
F
17.030924
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
LA
TAYLOR D
15
132
8.8
5 212622
1
16
1
4
8
14
15
16
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.980019
F
14.086287
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
4
MA
TAYLOR D
15
168
11.2
6.3493532
2
22
2
6
11
17
19
22
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.768058
F
14.774198
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
RD
DARVILLE M
23
167
7.260869565
4.5548914
0
21
1
5
7
10
11
12
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
16.064062
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
LA
DARVILLE M
23
143
6.217391304
3.6550901
0
14
2
3
5
10
11
12
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.71118
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
MA
DARVILLE M
23
189
8.217391304
5 767909
2
25
2
4
8
9
14
22
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.41133
F
12.088391
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
RD
FRANKLIN V
26
154
5.923076923
4.4893035
1
16
1
1
5
10
12
13
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.211943
F
13.349
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
LA
FRANKLIN V
26
126
4.846153846
4.1731744
0
13
0
2
3.5
8
12
12
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.635279
F
8.5244063
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
MA
FRANKLIN V
26
222
8.538461538
5 735718
1
22
1
5
7.5
12
16
20
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.317
F
13.498144
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
RD
LEITNER L
3
28
9.333333333
3.0550505
6
12
6
6
10
12
12
12
1.136148015
1.8284998
4.303203
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
LA
LEITNER L
3
15
5
2
3
7
3
3
5
7
7
7
1.434674213
2.0406349
4.969158
F
3.0261785
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
MA
LEITNER L
3
29
9.666666667
4.7258156
5
15
6
6
8
15
15
15
1.824890617
2.5360989
6.217543
F
5.3556091
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
RD
MATHIS M
23
265
11.52173913
5.6477636
0
22
7
8
11
15
19
22
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
27.239569
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
LA
MATHIS M
23
211
9.173913043
4.6676077
0
16
2
6
10
12
15
16
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.71118
F
18.188499
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONNALLY ELEM
5
MA
MATHIS M
23
213
9.260869565
6 432993
1
24
2
4
9
13
19
22
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.41133
F
14.061637
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONTINENTAL C
1
RD
HORTON
19
43
2.263157895
1 8809603
0
6
0
0
2
3
5
6
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.10631
F
3.4587426
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONTINENTAL C
1
RD
WHITE
8
31
3.875
3.0443155
0
9
0
1.5
3.5
6
9
9
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.661332
F
5.3033476
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONTINENTAL C
1
LA
WHITE
8
71
8.875
3.4820971
5
16
6
6
8
11
16
16
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.6685
F
10.562224
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONTINENTAL C
2
LA
GLOVER JOHNSON
17
47
2.764705882
2.4374529
0
10
0
1
2
4
6
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.579848
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONTINENTAL C
4
LA
TOLLIVER
18
68
3.777777778
2.5334365
0
9
1
2
3.5
6
7
9
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.842798
F
4.9510002
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CONTINENTAL C
5
RD
SINGLETON WILSO
19
51
2.684210526
2.6885071
0
10
0
1
2
3
7
10
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
L F
3.690374
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
3
LA
ANDERSON
13
52
4
4.8304589
0
13
0
1
1
6
12
13
1.507762082
2.05317
3.216103
F
4.376594
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
3
LA
NELSON LYNCH
15
63
4.2
4 2122271
0
14
0
1
4
7
11
14
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
3
MA
NELSON LYNCH
15
71
4.733333333
3.9182114
0
12
1
1
4
8
11
12
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
4.5516562
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
3
RD
VAN WALKER
1
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1.172489269
1.8664211
6.771753
F
5.8012154
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
3
LA
VAN WALKER
1
g
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1.507762082
2.05317
7.667272
F
3.6491074
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
3
MA
VAN WALKER
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1.873920927
2.4330609
9.173104
F
3.3398585
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
3
RD
WILLIAMS
14
49
3.5
2.0662117
0
7
2
2
3
5
7
7
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
4.6660144
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
3
LA
WILLIAMS
14
65
4.642857143
2.8177226
0
10
2
3
4
7
9
10
1.507762082
2.05317
3.15396
F
5.7133367
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
3
MA
WILLIAMS
14
57
4.071428571
2 0177781
1
8
2
2
4
5
7
8
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.82471
F
3.3794143
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
4
RD
REIMNITZ
18
64
3.555555556
4.3280511
0
14
0
1
2.5
4
12
14
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
6.6309122
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
4
MA
REIMNITZ
18
74
4.111111111
4 651235
0
21
0
2
3.5
5
6
21
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.603069
F
3.8816978
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
4
RD
ROBERTSON
20
58
2.9
3.6835338
0
15
0
0
1.5
4.5
7
11
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.093784
F
5.2003958
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
4
LA
ROBERTSON
20
63
3.15
2.4553915
0
9
0.5
2
2.5
4
7.5
8.5
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.769021
F
3.8379836
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
4
MA
ROBERTSON
20
71
3.55
3.0517467
0
12
0.5
1.5
3
4.5
8
11
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.514361
F
3.0651964
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
4
RD
WATKIS
20
55
2.75
3.3066918
0
10
0
0
1.5
4.5
9
10
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.093784
F
4.7910028
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
5
RD
OFOSUHENE
14
115
8.214285714
6 2163379
0
19
1
2
7.5
13
17
19
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.602209
F
14.483987
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
5
LA
OFOSUHENE
14
104
7.428571429
6.7904264
0
20
0
2
5
13
18
20
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.070822
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
5
MA
OFOSUHENE
14
194
13.85714286
10 647189
0
31
0
3
14
20
30
31
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.858293
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
5
LA
VASAN
14
50
3.571428571
3.3903548
0
12
1
1
2.5
5
8
12
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.070822
F
3.9178996
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
5
MA
VASAN
14
135
9.642857143
6.7437395
1
21
1
3
10
16
17
21
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.858293
F
11.53431
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
5
RD
WEEMS
16
114
7.125
5.60803
0
17
0
2
6
12
15
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
13.101127
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COOK ELEMENTA
5
MA
WEEMS
16
269
16.8125
7.6960488
3
28
5
13
18
23
27
28
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
23.63884
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
1
LA
FREEMAN S
13
43
3.307692308
1.9741925
0
7
1
2
3
4
6
7
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.22332
F
3.156218
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
1
MA
FREEMAN S
13
67
5.153846154
3.6019937
1
13
2
3
4
5
12
13
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.452861
F
5.9932408
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
1
LA
HENDERSON
14
51
3.642857143
2.8984649
0
10
1
2
3
4
9
10
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.164381
F
3.9193553
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
1
MA
HENDERSON
14
78
5.571428571
2.8746715
2
12
2
4
5
7
10
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
6.9820426
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
1
LA
PEARSON
14
57
4.071428571
2.7022579
1
10
2
2
3
5
9
10
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.164381
F
4.7428218
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
1
MA
PEARSON
14
76
5.428571429
2.6228078
2
12
3
3
5.5
7
8
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
6.721 165S
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
2
LA
BEAN
14
58
4.142857143
3.2547514
0
12
1
2
3
6
8
12
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.708366
F
6.0978897
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
2
MA
BEAN
14
58
4.142857143
2.7416206
0
11
1
2
4
6
6
11
1.728771036
2.047211
3.370191
F
4.4121897
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
2
LA
LONG LEY
16
52
3.25
3.4737108
0
11
0
1
2
4.5
10
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.618646
F
4.4575948
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
2
RD
RAILEY
16
33
2.0625
2.4891431
0
9
0
0
1.5
2.5
6
9
0.914374058
1.381785
1.950713
F
3.3236024
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
2
LA
RAI LEY
16
56
3.5
3.3065591
0
14
1
1.5
2.5
5
6
14
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.618646
F
5.0347654
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
2
MA
RAI LEY
16
137
8.5625
6.0988387
0
21
0
4
8.5
12
17
21
1.728771036
2.047211
3.264179
F
13.352271
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
3
RD
CROWDER
18
93
5.166666667
4.8172484
0
18
0
1
5.5
7
12
18
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
9.0793335
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
3
RD
FREEMAN J
18
105
5.833333333
4.1052334
0
13
1
2
6
8
13
13
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
3
LA
FREEMAN J
18
62
3.444444444
2.3319324
0
9
0
2
3
5
7
9
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
4.0019323
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
3
MA
FREEMAN J
18
70
3.888888889
2.2980526
0
9
2
2
3
5
8
9
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
3.5135927
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
3
RD
MARTIN
16
117
7.3125
6.5698173
0
25
1
2.5
6
10
15
25
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
13.158897
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
4
RD
DRIGER
27
75
2.777777778
2.7080128
0
8
0
0
2
5
7
8
0.994595544
1.6385729
1.940626
F
5.6547295
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
4
LA
DRIGER
27
86
3.185185185
2.6462897
0
14
1
2
2
4
6
6
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.578977
F
4.5492548
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
4
MA
DRIGER
27
109
4.037037037
3 0316469
0
10
0
1
5
7
8
8
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.285859
F
4.5966435
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
4
RD
HALL
26
163
6.269230769
4.3685942
1
18
1
4
5
8
12
17
0.994595544
1.6385729
1.958647
F
16.413959
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
4
LA
HALL
26
180
6.923076923
5.1062556
2
25
2
4
5.5
8
12
18
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.601338
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
4
MA
HALL
26
169
6.5
3.4899857
1
15
1
5
7
9
10
12
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.312746
F
9.6479344
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
5
LA
COWAN
16
66
4.125
4.0311289
0
15
1
1.5
3
4.5
12
15
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
5.2735073
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
5
MA
COWAN
16
84
5.25
4.4045431
0
16
1
2.5
4
6.5
13
16
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
5.40217
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
5
RD
TURMAN
23
94
4.086956522
3.2321263
0
11
0
1
3
6
9
11
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
5
LA
TURMAN
23
120
5.217391304
3 9537844
0
14
1
1
5
9
10
10
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.71118
F
8.8900144
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
D H STANTON E
5
MA
TURMAN
23
142
6.173913043
4.5592281
0
16
0
2
5
9
11
16
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.41133
F
8.2241187
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOODACAD
1
LA
HORNBUCKLE
20
123
6.15
3.1834275
1
12
1.5
4
6
8.5
11
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.909351
F
10.442275
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOODACAD
1
MA
HORNBUCKLE
20
139
6.95
4.5822886
0
20
2.5
3
6.5
10
12
17
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.122509
F
11.354078
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOODACAD
1
RD
LOWMAN
21
51
2.428571429
2.8908723
0
13
0
1
2
3
5
5
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.056245
F
4.1448501
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOODACAD
1
LA
LOWMAN
21
72
3.428571429
2.3360528
0
7
1
2
3
5
7
7
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.877869
F
4.2959421
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOODACAD
1
MA
LOWMAN
21
101
4.80952381
3.8938291
0
18
2
3
3
6
8
10
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.089384
F
6.8471813
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOODACAD
1
RD
MCDOWELL
21
51
2.428571429
1 5991069
0
5
0
1
3
4
4
5
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.056245
F
4.1448501
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOODACAD
1
LA
MCDOWELL
21
91
4.333333333
3.2914029
0
13
1
2
4
5
9
10
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.877869
F
6.4250744
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
1
MA
MCDOWELL
21
112
5.333333333
3.4399612
0
13
1
3
4
8
10
10
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.089384
F
8.0187085
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
1
LA
MONROE
19
85
4.473684211
3 339468
0
11
0
2
4
7
11
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
6.4256246
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
1
MA
MONROE
19
115
6.052631579
3 407079
1
15
2
4
6
8
11
15
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.158216
F
9.1575377
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
1
RD
PEEK
22
47
2.136363636
1.7537838
0
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.033813
F
3.3227494
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
1
LA
PEEK
22
95
4.318181818
4 075319
0
15
1
1
3
6
8
14
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.848558
F
6.5397789
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
1
MA
PEEK
22
140
6.363636364
3 360066
1
15
3
4
5
8
10
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.058545
F
10.565963
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
1
MA
STEPHENS
20
103
5.15
3.3289006
1
13
2
3
4.5
7
11
13
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.122509
F
7.425305S
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
RD
COKLEY
19
65
3.421052632
2 063325
0
9
1
2
3
5
6
9
0.914374058
1.381785
1.865384
F
7.9074233
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
LA
COKLEY
19
125
6.578947368
3 305144
2
13
2
4
6
10
11
13
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
13.23261'!
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
MA
COKLEY
19
169
8.894736842
4.3829814
2
20
3
7
9
9
16
20
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
15.257695
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
RD
FORD
19
58
3.052631579
2.4146241
0
9
0
1
3
5
6
9
0.914374058
1.381785
1.865384
F
6.7452236
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
MA
FORD
19
82
4.315789474
2.6677629
1
10
1
2
4
6
9
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
5.508251
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
LA
HENREY
18
71
3.944444444
2 6002765
0
9
1
2
3.5
5
9
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
6.4284984
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
MA
HENREY
18
62
3.444444444
2.3570226
0
9
1
1
3.5
5
6
9
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
RD
HUFF
18
41
2.277777778
2.7182511
0
10
0
0
1.5
3
7
10
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
4.1862028
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
LA
HUFF
18
46
2.555555556
1.5038078
0
6
1
2
2
3
5
6
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
3.0274882
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
MA
HUFF
18
67
3.722222222
2.5159621
1
9
1
2
3
6
8
9
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
4.1312289
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
LA
WILLIAMS
18
63
3.5
2.3825345
0
9
0
2
3
4
8
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
5.3401751
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
2
MA
WILLIAMS
18
63
3.5
3.0534455
1
12
1
1
3
4
10
12
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
3.6706955
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
3
LA
BROWN
20
82
4.1
2.8818853
0
11
1
2
3.5
5.5
9
10
1.507762082
2.05317
2.88507
F
5.6463129
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
3
MA
BROWN
20
74
3.7
3.1639416
0
13
1
1
3
5.5
7.5
11
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.506068
F
3.356461
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
3
RD
JONES
20
77
3.85
2.4121403
0
8
1
2
4
5
7.5
8
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.424523
F
6.4155898
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
3
RD
TRICHE
19
52
2.736842105
2.9970746
0
13
0
0
3
3
6
13
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.457048
F
3.6534392
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
4
RD
MALLORY
25
135
5.4
4 681524
0
17
1
2
3
9
12
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
1.977739
F
13.442809
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
4
LA
MALLORY
25
76
3.04
5.5036352
0
21
0
0
1
2
14
16
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.625028
F
4.0204871
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
4
MA
MALLORY
25
146
5.84
6.7433918
0
26
0
1
3
10
16
16
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.34123
F
8.1106914
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
4
RD
MCCULLEY
25
50
2
3.3166248
0
14
0
0
1
2
7
9
0.994595544
1.6385729
1.977739
F
3.0679271
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
4
MA
WRIGHT
26
108
4.153846154
3.4373514
0
13
0
1
3.5
6
10
11
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.312746
F
I •
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
5
LA
DIGGS
25
80
3.2
3.4034296
0
11
0
0
2
4
8
11
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.659055
F
4.3254327
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
5
RD
FRIEDLAND
24
63
2.625
2.5505754
0
10
0
1
2
3
6
8
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.255871
F
3.9889835
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
5
MA
FRIEDLAND
24
102
4.25
4.3663735
0
18
1
1
2
6
10
11
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.377928
F
4.6845811
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
5
RD
WARMACK
12
55
4.583333333
5.1249538
0
17
1
1
2.5
7
11
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.719675
F
6.5307092
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
5
LA
WARMACK
12
78
6.5
7.1031363
0
21
0
0.5
5
9
19
21
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.201916
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
5
MA
WARMACK
12
71
5.916666667
5.8380933
0
17
0
1
4.5
10
14
17
1.824890617
2.5360989
4.021217
F
5.589028
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
5
RD
WOODARD
20
83
4.15
2.1343062
0
8
1
2.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.362743
F
J. 3 712647
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DEERWOOD ACAD
5
LA
WOODARD
20
117
5.85
2.7772573
0
11
1.5
4.5
6
8
9
10
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.803574
F
9.6763694
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
1
RD
COLEMAN
17
47
2.764705882
2.5379473
0
11
0
1
2
3
5
11
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.16497
F
4.6592026
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
1
LA
COLEMAN
17
56
3.294117647
2.5190451
0
10
0
2
3
5
6
10
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
3.5805317
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
1
LA
CONNER
17
96
5.647058824
3 0401722
2
14
2
4
5
7
10
14
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
8.5624228
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
1
MA
CONNER
17
63
3.705882353
1.9926335
1
8
1
2
4
5
6
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
3.3397881
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
1
LA
MULFINGER
15
71
4.733333333
3.7505555
0
13
1
2
3
7
11
13
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.111438
F
6.2257232
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
1
MA
MULFINGER
15
106
7.066666667
4 802777
1
18
2
3
6
10
13
18
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.335141
F
10.053447
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
1
RD
PITTS
17
49
2.882352941
2.4208044
0
9
0
1
2
5
6
9
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.16497
F
4.9846795
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
1
MA
PITTS
17
77
4.529411765
3 537613
0
12
0
2
4
6
10
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
5.5969806
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
2
RD
CRUMP
18
72
4
3.5645312
0
16
0
2
4
5
6
16
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
9.4741241
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
2
LA
CRUMP
18
51
2.833333333
3 2584731
0
11
0
1
2
3
10
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
3.7076902
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
2
MA
CRUMP
18
86
4.777777778
3.0010891
0
11
1
3
4
7
9
11
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
6.3187626
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
2
RD
STUBBLEFIELD
18
35
1.944444444
2 484593
0
9
0
0
1
3
6
9
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
3.1627342
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
2
LA
STUBBLEFIELD
18
58
3.222222222
2.4627951
0
9
0
2
3
4
7
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
4.6599731
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
2
MA
STUBBLEFIELD
18
68
3.777777778
3.0206263
0
11
1
2
3
4
8
11
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
4.24S3623
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
3
LA
WILLIAMS
16
57
3.5625
2.25
0
7
1
2
3.5
5.5
7
7
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
4.0030546
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
4
RD
BROADWATER
15
70
4.666666667
3.1997024
0
11
1
2
5
7
9
11
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.263829
F
8.6794247
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
4
LA
BROADWATER
15
85
5.666666667
4 1518785
0
14
0
3
5
9
10
14
1.405105438
2.0332046
2 980019
F
8.1177054
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
4
MA
BROADWATER
15
79
5.266666667
3.1952345
1
13
2
3
5
7
9
13
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.768058
F
5.3742002
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
4
RD
SMITH
15
150
10
3.1622777
4
16
5
8
10
12
14
16
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.263829
F
21.285462
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DO BBS ELEMENT
4
LA
SMITH
15
186
12.4
4.2728378
3
18
6
9
13
16
17
18
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.980019
F
20.943807
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
4
MA
SMITH
15
93
6.2
6 178303
1
27
2
3
4
8
8
27
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.768058
F
6.8528514
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
4
RD
THRASHER
2
13
6.5
2.1213203
5
8
5
5
6.5
8
8
8
0.994595544
1.6385729
4.470534
F
4.7515845
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
4
RD
WILLIAMSON
18
128
7.111111111
3.4451823
2
12
2
4
7
11
11
12
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
15.83706
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
4
LA
WILLIAMSON
18
102
5.666666667
3 0869745
1
12
1
3
5.5
8
10
12
1.405105438
2.0332046
2 842798
F
8.8925007
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
4
MA
WILLIAMSON
18
97
5.388888889
2 354942
1
10
3
4
5
7
9
10
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.603069
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
5
LA
DOBBS
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1.434674213
2.0406349
7.556579
F
3,21 ('2956
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
5
MA
DOBBS
1
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1.824890617
2.5360989
9.433187
F
5.5893361
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
5
LA
GONZALES
17
64
3.764705882
6.1189196
0
23
0
0
1
3
12
23
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.919454
F
4.7078322
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
5
RD
THRASHER
11
75
6.818181818
2.3587362
3
11
4
5
7
9
9
11
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.790088
F
10.306359
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DOBBS ELEMENT
5
LA
THRASHER
11
44
4
4.8166378
1
16
1
1
2
5
10
16
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.280498
F
4.1693999
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
1
RD
CLEVELAND P
16
120
7.5
5 9217115
3
19
3
3
4.5
11
18
19
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.198343
F
17.229391
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
1
LA
CLEVELAND P
16
158
9.875
7.1635652
0
23
1
4.5
8
15
21
23
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
16.991326
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
1
MA
CLEVELAND P
16
122
7.625
4.1452784
3
15
3
4
6.5
12
15
15
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
11.473146
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
1
RD
ROBINSON S
15
94
6.266666667
2.3135213
2
9
3
4
7
8
9
9
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.235
F
13.477192
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
1
LA
ROBINSON S
15
113
7.533333333
3.2703575
1
11
2
5
8
10
11
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.111438
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
1
MA
ROBINSON S
15
120
8
3.2071349
4
14
4
5
8
10
13
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.335141
F
11.817663
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
2
RD
BUCKNER WEBB
15
67
4.466666667
3.3988794
0
11
1
2
4
7
11
11
0.914374058
1.381785
1.9847
F
9.9566652
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
2
LA
BUCKNER WEBB
15
110
7.333333333
5.9241234
0
20
0
4
6
14
15
20
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
13.443817
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
2
MA
BUCKNER WEBB
15
111
7.4
4.3882961
0
18
1
6
7
10
13
18
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
2
RD
NEALR
14
82
5.857142857
3.4386299
0
13
2
3
5.5
9
9
13
0.914374058
1.381785
2.022267
F
13.384244
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
2
LA
NEALR
13
98
7.538461538
5.4865804
2
16
2
3
6
13
16
16
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.760806
F
12.942388
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
2
MA
NEALR
14
121
8.642857143
4.1806724
1
17
6
6
7.5
11
15
17
1.728771036
2.047211
3.370191
F
12.636774
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
3
RD
FINCH S
18
122
6.777777778
5.4831888
1
19
1
1
7
10
15
19
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
12.741618
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
3
LA
FINCH S
18
141
7.833333333
6 904815
0
24
0
3
6.5
12
21
24
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
13.071068
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
3
MA
FINCH S
18
118
6.555555556
5.7109
0
19
0
2
5
10
17
19
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
8.1635826
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
3
RD
SIMS K
17
125
7.352941176
7.7131477
0
22
0
0
3
15
17
22
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
3
LA
SIMS K
17
157
9.235294118
8.7215925
0
25
0
1
6
15
22
25
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
15.518165
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
3
MA
SIMS K
17
177
10.41176471
7.4082625
0
20
0
4
10
17
19
20
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
14.468373
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
4
RD
D MERO
5
61
12.2
9.4180677
1
23
1
5
12
20
23
23
0.994595544
1.6385729
3.192972
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
4
LA
D MERO
5
83
16.6
10 502381
2
27
2
10
19
25
27
27
1.405105438
2.0332046
4.132936
F
16.710968
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
4
MA
D MERO
5
84
16.8
15 578832
1
40
1
4
18
21
40
40
1.874440105
2.4446497
5.154282
F
13. 652085
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
4
RD
JACKSON M
13
64
4.923076923
3 904304
0
14
2
3
3
6
10
14
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.357971
F
8.6443153
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
4
LA
JACKSON M
13
131
10.07692308
9.4292235
0
24
0
1
8
20
23
24
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.096834
F
15.378031
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
4
MA
JACKSON M
13
111
8.538461538
6.7282413
0
20
0
3
9
14
17
20
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.908512
F
9.8285945
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
4
RD
MORRIS R
13
62
4.769230769
3.8762922
0
13
0
2
5
6
10
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.357971
F
8.3057889
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
4
LA
MORRIS R
13
60
4.615384615
4.1940128
0
13
0
1
3
7
10
13
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.096834
F
5.692898
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
4
MA
MORRIS R
13
171
13.15384615
8 1121941
3
32
6
8
11
17
22
32
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.908512
F
16.635707
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
5
RD
BROWN K
12
134
11.16666667
10 675659
0
29
2
2.5
5.5
22
25
29
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.719675
F
19.002866
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
5
LA
BROWN K
12
153
12.75
10 821905
0
34
0
1
15
20
21
34
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.201916
F
19.208452
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
5
MA
BROWN K
12
191
15.91666667
13 493826
0
36
1
1.5
16
28
34
36
1.824890617
2.5360989
4.021217
F
19.248202
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
5
RD
D MERO
9
150
16.66666667
15 953056
0
37
0
0
24
30
37
37
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.964648
F
25.480756
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
5
MA
D MERO
9
148
16.44444444
18 648801
0
39
0
1
2
36
39
39
1.824890617
2.5360989
4.36099
F
17.29375
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
5
RD
IVEYG
12
169
14.08333333
7.6093045
5
29
6
8.5
11
21
22
29
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.719675
F
24.528505
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
5
LA
IVEYG
12
157
13.08333333
6 0220554
3
23
7
8
13
18
20
23
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.201916
F
19.774306
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
DUNBAR ELEMEN
5
MA
IVEY G
12
224
18.66666667
9 442008
2
33
8
13
18
25
32
33
1.824890617
2.5360989
4.021217
F
23.004475
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
1
RD
MILLER
10
32
3.2
2.1499354
0
7
0.5
1
3
5
6
7
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.494449
F
4.4970741
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
1
LA
MILLER
10
95
9.5
5.1044643
5
20
5.5
6
7
13
18
20
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.450444
F
12.823861
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
1
MA
MILLER
10
77
7.7
3.12872
3
12
3.5
6
7
11
12
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.691835
F
9.1860711
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
1
RD
SMITH
15
98
6.533333333
5 040786
0
16
0
3
7
11
15
16
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.235
F
14.170185
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
1
LA
SMITH
15
122
8.133333333
4.4700059
0
17
3
5
8
11
15
17
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.111438
F
(2.387849
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
1
MA
SMITH
15
118
7.866666667
5 8415588
0
19
3
3
5
13
18
19
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.335141
F
11.565632
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
2
RD
OLIVE
13
35
2.692307692
2 358835
0
8
0
1
2
3
6
8
0.914374058
1.381785
2.064089
F
4.6392392
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
2
LA
OLIVE
13
59
4.538461538
3.1255769
1
10
2
2
3
8
9
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.760806
F
6.6993334
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
3
RD
HADLEY
12
88
7.333333333
6.7464918
0
20
1
2.5
5
12
19
20
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.788857
F
11.434606
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
3
LA
HADLEY
12
47
3.916666667
4.1441818
0
15
0
0.5
4
5
6
15
1.507762082
2.05317
3.285859
F
4.0642958
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
3
MA
HADLEY
12
56
4.666666667
5.3654337
0
17
0
0.5
3.5
6
13
17
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.981013
F
3.9762075
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
3
LA
JONES ALLIE
12
53
4.416666667
3.2321772
0
9
1
1.5
4.5
8
8
9
1.507762082
2.05317
3.285859
F
4.9078941
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
3
MA
JONES ALLIE
12
79
6.583333333
6 6532061
0
20
1
1
3.5
12
15
20
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.981013
F
6.7050863
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
3
LA
STAHL
5
23
4.6
4.5607017
0
10
0
0
5
8
10
10
1.507762082
2.05317
4.262379
F
3.3676968
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
3
MA
STAHL
5
32
6.4
4.2778499
3
12
3
3
4
10
12
12
1.873920927
2.4330609
5.138215
F
4.1596248
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
4
RD
ROGERS MARTIN
18
65
3.611111111
4.2027846
0
11
0
0
1.5
9
10
11
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
6.7747582
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
4
LA
ROGERS MARTIN
18
58
3.222222222
2.5101103
0
8
0
1
3
4
8
8
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.842798
F
3.7917353
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
4
RD
WASHINGTON
16
73
4.5625
4.8300276
0
13
0
0
2.5
9
12
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
F
8.709785
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
4
LA
WASHINGTON
16
53
3.3125
3.2190837
0
10
0
0.5
2.5
5.5
8
10
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
3.7524892
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
4
MA
WASHINGTON
16
90
5.625
4 869976
0
17
1
1
4.5
9
12
17
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.707927
F
6.1367645
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
EAST LAKE ELE
5
MA
WALLS
20
87
4.35
4 029823
0
13
0
1
3.5
7.5
11
13
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.526158
F
4.4527571
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
1
RD
FOSTER RHEA
17
57
3.352941176
2.3168183
0
7
0
2
3
5
7
7
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.16497
F
6.2865873
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
1
RD
HILL NNENIA
16
62
3.875
2.5787594
0
11
1
2.5
4
4.5
7
11
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.198343
F
7.5000661
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
1
LA
HILL NNENIA
16
107
6.6875
5.25
2
20
2
3
5
7.5
17
20
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
10.443926
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
1
MA
HILL NNENIA
16
99
6.1875
5.6711992
1
21
2
3
4.5
6.5
19
21
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
8.6668262
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
2
RD
DURR NIKKI
19
50
2.631578947
2.6079052
0
10
0
1
2
4
8
10
0.914374058
1.381785
1.865384
F
5.4169953
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
2
LA
DURR NIKKI
19
67
3.526315789
2.5899039
0
10
0
2
3
5
7
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
5.5527144
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
2
MA
DURR NIKKI
19
72
3.789473684
3.0473841
0
11
0
2
3
5
9
11
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
4.3876253
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
2
LA
GOSHA TALANDRIA
20
50
2.5
2.6655699
0
10
0
0.5
2
4
6
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.481461
F
3.0478535
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
2
MA
GOSHA TALANDRIA
20
100
5
3.0087591
0
11
1.5
3
5
7.5
9.5
11
1.728771036
2.047211
3.102082
F
7.1460054
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
2
LA
MOODY NORLEDIA
19
91
4.789473684
2.8786368
1
11
1
2
5
7
8
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
8.7306026
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
2
MA
MOODY NORLEDIA
19
89
4.684210526
2.3817041
1
10
1
3
5
7
7
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
6.2926891
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
3
RD
BULLOCK WILLIAM
17
66
3.882352941
2.4719009
0
8
1
2
4
6
7
8
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
5.9863523
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
3
LA
BULLOCK WILLIAM
17
92
5.411764706
4.3020173
0
14
0
3
5
6
13
14
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
7.8398842
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
3
MA
BULLOCK WILLIAM
17
127
7.470588235
5.1249103
1
19
1
4
7
9
14
19
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
9.4842059
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
3
RD
WAGNER GIDDENS
18
133
7.388888889
4.7046771
1
17
1
4
8
10
15
17
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
3
LA
WAGNER GIDDENS
18
143
7.944444444
6.2635474
0
22
1
2
6.5
13
17
22
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
13.300667
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
3
MA
WAGNER GIDDENS
18
182
10.11111111
6.7378552
0
20
0
4
11
16
18
20
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
14.363569
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
3
RD
WILSON VANESSA
18
99
5.5
4.5536023
0
17
1
2
4.5
8
13
17
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
9.8370476
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
3
LA
WILSON VANESSA
18
108
6
5.9507785
0
22
0
2
4.5
8
18
22
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
3
MA
WILSON VANESSA
18
84
4.666666667
4 392507
0
14
0
1
3
9
11
14
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
4.8698398
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
4
RD
CONLEYGREGGORY
18
163
9.055555556
4.3178456
0
15
1
6
11
12
13
15
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
20.871672
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
4
LA
CONLEYGREGGORY
18
168
9.333333333
6 287242
0
24
0
6
8.5
12
18
24
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.842798
F
16.543649
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
4
MA
CONLEYGREGGORY
18
180
10
5.8006085
0
18
1
6
12
15
16
18
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.603069
F
14.101747
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
4
RD
DEBRACURLEY
21
100
4.761904762
3.6042303
0
12
1
2
4
6
11
12
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.067293
F
10.535985
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
4
LA
DEBRACURLEY
21
154
7.333333333
6 6583281
0
25
1
2
6
9
15
21
1.405105438
2.0332046
2 73615
F
13.361446
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
4
MA
DEBRACURLEY
21
185
8.80952381
5.1050862
1
19
3
6
8
12
15
18
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.474839
F
1 3.00004 1
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
4
RD
GAUSEJACQUELIN
21
198
9.428571429
5.6883339
0
24
5
7
8
12
15
21
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.067293
F
23.587191
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
4
LA
GAUSEJACQUELIN
21
165
7.857142857
5 042675
0
18
2
4
7
13
14
14
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.73615
F
14.542044
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
4
MA
GAUSEJACQUELIN
21
252
12
7.0071392
1
24
2
6
14
16
20
21
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.474839
F
18.980692
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
5
RD
MANUEL EDWARDS
24
168
7
6.0144753
0
20
0
2.5
6
11
16
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.255871
F
15.710634
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
5
LA
MANUEL EDWARDS
24
148
6.166666667
5.1471112
1
17
1
1
4
11
13
14
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.684303
F
11.380157
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
5
MA
MANUEL EDWARDS
24
304
12.66666667
9 6534142
0
32
2
4
13
21
25
31
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.377928
F
20.943047
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
5
RD
MCRAE JONES WAN
25
218
8.72
5.2798359
0
22
2
5
9
12
16
16
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.233248
F
20.737908
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
5
LA
MCRAE JONES WAN
25
285
11.4
8.2512625
0
31
1
5
11
17
22
25
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.659055
F
24.417219
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
F L STANTON
5
MA
MCRAE JONES WAN
25
309
12.36
6.9214642
0
23
3
8
11
18
21
22
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.34655
F
20.770304
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
1
RD
CEDRIC CARWISE
21
48
2.285714286
1.7361698
0
8
0
1
2
3
3
4
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.056245
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
1
LA
CEDRIC CARWISE
21
88
4.19047619
2.8216847
0
11
1
2
4
5
8
10
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.877869
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
1
MA
CEDRIC CARWISE
21
80
3.80952381
3.2652572
0
14
1
2
3
4
7
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.089384
F
4.6106292
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
1
RD
LESLIE MCALPIN
21
76
3.619047619
2 4794393
0
10
2
2
3
5
6
8
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.056245
F
7.8053893
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
1
LA
LESLIE MCALPIN
21
119
5.666666667
3.0713732
1
12
2
3
6
8
9
10
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.877869
F
9.5627431
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENT A
1
MA
LESLIE MCALPIN
21
94
4.476190476
2.8039088
0
9
1
2
5
7
8
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.089384
F
6.1816639
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
1
MA
MELVIA HOLMES
14
52
3.714285714
2.7295695
0
9
1
1
3.5
5
9
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
3.5906452
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
1
LA
SABRINA LUCKIE
21
77
3.666666667
3.5118846
0
15
0
1
3
4
7
9
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.877869
F
4.8562401
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
1
MA
SABRINA LUCKIE
21
75
3.571428571
2.7851648
0
12
1
2
3
5
6
7
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.089384
F
4.0781168
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
1
LA
SHAWANDA DICKEY
25
95
3.8
2 5
0
11
1
2
4
5
7
7
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.77144
F
5.04094
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
2
RD
JEREMIAH SALES
21
125
5.952380952
3 8010024
1
15
2
3
5
8
11
14
0.914374058
1.381785
1.818965
F
16.708134
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
2
LA
JEREMIAH SALES
21
193
9.19047619
3.9827007
0
17
4
7
10
12
13
14
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.45345
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
2
MA
JEREMIAH SALES
21
250
11.9047619
5.4212984
0
22
7
9
11
16
18
19
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
2
MA
NADIA SIMON
21
76
3.619047619
4.1409684
0
17
0
1
3
4
5
13
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
4.2312862
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
2
LA
ROSEMARY TIMMON
21
53
2.523809524
1.5690458
0
6
1
1
2
3
5
5
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.45345
F
3.186095
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
2
LA
WAVNE RICKS
6
24
4
4.2426407
0
12
0
2
2.5
5
12
12
1.319203885
1.7325901
3.441185
F
3.7900382
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
3
RD
PAMELA WITMER
20
251
12.55
8 287435
0
33
1
6.5
13
18
22
28
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.424523
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
3
LA
PAMELA WITMER
20
266
13.3
7 6989405
0
30
3.5
8
14
18
24
28
1.507762082
2.05317
2.88507
F
25.685399
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
3
MA
PAMELA WITMER
20
371
18.55
10 450258
1
41
4.5
12
19
23
36
39
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.506068
F
30.651799
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
3
RD
YO LAN DA STEVENS
22
111
5.045454545
5.4987208
0
14
0
0
2
11
13
14
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.366256
F
9.7329684
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
3
LA
YO LAN DA STEVENS
22
190
8.636363636
7.6066729
0
25
0
2
6.5
15
19
21
1.507762082
2.05317
2.820974
F
16.285113
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
3
MA
YO LAN DA STEVENS
22
208
9.454545455
9.9939376
0
28
1
1
3.5
20
23
25
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.430112
F
14.61 3806
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
4
RD
ANTHONY JOHNSON
17
43
2.529411765
3.4662236
0
12
0
0
1
3
9
12
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
3.8620249
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
4
MA
ANTHONY JOHNSON
17
78
4.588235294
4.4589632
0
19
1
2
4
5
11
19
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.653184
F
4 '•, . '"IK
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
4
RD
MARSHA FRANCIS
17
41
2.411764706
3.3551979
0
10
0
0
1
2
8
10
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
3.5659921
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
4
LA
ROBIN HOWARD
16
85
5.3125
5.1344425
0
20
2
2
4.5
5.5
15
20
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
7.6871646
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
4
RD
TAMMY BUTLER
17
49
2.882352941
3.7061158
0
13
0
0
2
5
8
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
4.7501231
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
5
RD
MALIKA BROWN
19
60
3.157894737
4.0313102
0
12
0
1
1
4
11
12
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
F
4.8195739
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
5
LA
MALIKA BROWN
19
80
4.210526316
5.9027202
0
23
0
1
2
5
14
23
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.839135
F
5.9293599
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
5
RD
PAMELA FORDHAM
17
73
4.294117647
3.8204173
1
15
1
1
4
5
10
15
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.466577
F
7.1209429
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FAIN ELEMENTA
5
LA
PAMELA FORDHAM
17
80
4.705882353
3.0158893
0
13
1
3
4
5
9
13
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.919454
F
6.6094805
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
1
RD
NJIE
19
57
3
2.4267033
0
8
0
1
3
5
7
8
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.10631
F
5.6138352
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
1
LA
NJIE
19
75
3.947368421
2.7982869
0
10
0
2
4
5
9
10
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
5.2475253
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
1
MA
NJIE
19
67
3.526315789
2.6112666
0
9
1
2
3
6
8
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.158216
F
3.7830906
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
1
RD
PARKER
19
43
2.263157895
3.2802795
0
14
0
0
1
3
5
14
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.10631
F
3.4587426
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
1
LA
PARKER
19
58
3.052631579
2.9716005
0
13
1
1
2
4
7
13
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
1
RD
ROMENESKO
12
30
2.5
1.9306146
0
6
0
0.5
3
4
4
6
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.37126
F
3.2992386
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
2
LA
LITTLE
18
61
3.388888889
2.1730675
0
8
0
2
3.5
5
6
8
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
5.0680943
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
2
MA
LITTLE
18
90
5
3.7573457
0
16
0
2
5
7
8
16
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
6.779296
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
2
LA
MARTIN
19
77
4.052631579
2.5921609
0
9
0
2
4
6
8
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
6.8768345
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
2
MA
MARTIN
19
80
4.210526316
2.7402138
0
10
1
2
4
7
8
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
5.2841259
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
2
LA
TAYLOR
20
63
3.15
2.7198104
0
9
0
1
2.5
5
7
8.5
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.481461
F
4.725624
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
2
RD
TICKLES
19
53
2.789473684
1.3572418
0
5
1
2
2
4
5
5
0.914374058
1.381785
1.865384
F
5.9150809
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
2
LA
TICKLES
19
61
3.210526316
2 5293598
0
9
0
2
3
4
8
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
4.7582423
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
2
MA
TICKLES
19
78
4.105263158
2.3308257
0
8
0
3
4
5
8
8
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
5.0600007
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
2
LA
WATKINS
13
46
3.538461538
2.6017745
0
9
1
1
3
4
7
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.760806
F
4.6183153
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
2
MA
WATKINS
13
86
6.615384615
4.82249
2
16
2
3
4
10
14
16
1.728771036
2.047211
3.432154
F
8.6063118
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
3
RD
CARTER
21
83
3.952380952
2.7106492
0
10
1
2
4
6
7
8
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.394349
F
6.8253966
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
3
LA
CARTER
21
78
3.714285714
2.2614787
1
8
1
2
3
5
6
8
1.507762082
2.05317
2.851877
F
4.9248535
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
3
MA
CARTER
21
113
5.380952381
4.2246443
0
18
1
2
5
7
9
12
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.466733
F
6.6053575
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
3
RD
KING
20
55
2.75
3 0586375
0
9
0
1
2
3.5
9
9
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.424523
F
3.7798772
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
3
LA
KING
20
66
3.3
2.8855356
0
13
0
2
3
4.5
5.5
9.5
1.507762082
2.05317
2.88507
F
3.9037837
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
3
LA
REDD
14
49
3.5
2.6530099
0
8
1
1
2.5
6
7
8
1.507762082
2.05317
3.15396
F
3.6306159
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
3
RD
YOUNG
20
161
8.05
4.0454653
2
16
2.5
4.5
8
11
14
15
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.424523
F
16.47922
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
3
LA
YOUNG
20
125
6.25
5.9105169
0
19
1
1.5
4.5
11
16
18
1.507762082
2.05317
2.88507
F
10.32936
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
3
MA
YOUNG
20
129
6.45
3.2032056
2
15
2.5
3.5
7
8.5
9.5
13
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.506068
L F
8.4111531
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
4
RD
MILES
22
158
7.181818182
6.3892496
1
24
1
2
4
10
15
20
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.04263
F
17.710928
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
4
LA
MILES
22
126
5.727272727
4 0962447
0
14
0
3
5
7
12
13
1.405105438
2.0332046
2 705547
F
9.970842
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
4
MA
MILES
22
141
6.409090909
4.76754
0
14
1
3
4
11
14
14
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.438043
F
8.7003865
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
4
RD
SCOTT
23
73
3.173913043
2.3091158
0
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.019594
F
6.3785013
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
4
LA
SCOTT
23
85
3.695652174
3.1970837
0
12
1
1
2
7
8
9
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.676963
F
5.4028387
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
4
MA
SCOTT
23
104
4.52173913
3.3285209
0
13
1
2
5
7
9
9
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.403674
F
5.1933821
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
4
RD
WHEELER
24
88
3.666666667
3.7261318
0
13
0
0.5
3
5
10
11
0.994595544
1.6385729
1.998012
F
7.9889161
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
4
LA
WHEELER
24
65
2.708333333
1.7315278
0
6
0
1
3
4
5
6
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.650184
F
3.1401104
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
4
MA
WHEELER
24
103
4.291666667
2 9411498
0
12
1
2
4
6
8
10
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.371476
F
4.8440246
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
5
RD
GRAY
23
105
4.565217391
2.8094983
1
12
2
3
4
6
7
11
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
5
RD
WILBOURN
17
170
10
5 937171
1
20
3
5
9
16
17
20
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.466577
F
19.987204
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FICKETT ELEME
5
MA
WILBOURN
17
183
10.76470588
4.9311435
3
19
3
7
11
14
19
19
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.670174
F
14.534055
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
1
RD
FLORENCE
19
78
4.105263158
2.3068674
0
10
0
3
4
5
7
10
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.10631
F
8.846474
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
1
LA
FLORENCE
19
117
6.157894737
4.0313102
0
13
0
3
7
9
12
13
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
10.195542
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
1
MA
FLORENCE
19
86
4.526315789
2.2941573
0
9
1
3
4
6
8
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.158216
F
5,9104?58
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
1
RD
WILLIAMS
19
53
2.789473684
1 5839103
0
6
0
2
3
4
5
6
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.10631
F
4.9980944
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
1
LA
WILLIAMS
19
98
5.157894737
3.0779351
0
11
0
3
5
7
10
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
7.9571537
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
1
MA
WILLIAMS
19
82
4.315789474
3.4488747
0
14
0
2
4
5
10
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.158216
F
5.4626053
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
RD
COLLIER
20
47
2.35
1.6944181
0
6
0.5
1
2
3
5
5.5
0.914374058
1.381785
1.841304
F
4.6463919
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
LA
COLLIER
20
85
4.25
2.8814287
0
10
1
2
4
6.5
8.5
9.5
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.481461
F
7.5649278
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
MA
COLLIER
20
138
6.9
4.9831294
0
22
2.5
3.5
6
8.5
13
19
1.728771036
2.047211
3.102082
F
11.296559
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
RD
DANIEL
20
41
2.05
2.5438264
0
9
0
0
1
3
6
7.5
0.914374058
1.381785
1.841304
F
.! 6i M443
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
LA
DANIEL
20
56
2.8
2 607681
0
10
0
1
2
4
6.5
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.481461
F
3.8222091
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
MA
DANIEL
20
82
4.1
2.6337885
0
9
1
2
3
6.5
8
8.5
1.728771036
2.047211
3.102082
F
5.1799538
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
RD
MAY
18
35
1.944444444
1.6259738
0
5
0
0
2
3
4
5
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
3.1827342
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
MA
MAY
18
72
4
3.1808249
0
13
1
2
3.5
6
7
13
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
4.7068957
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
RD
SHORTER
17
66
3.882352941
2.1471595
0
7
1
2
3
6
7
7
0.914374058
1.381785
1.91977
F
8.8561468
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
LA
SHORTER
17
57
3.352941176
2.9567968
0
11
0
1
3
4
8
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.579848
F
4.8397563
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
MA
SHORTER
17
88
5.176470588
3.8444001
0
13
1
1
6
8
10
13
1.728771036
2.047211
3.218336
F
6.9437052
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
RD
THOMAS WILSON
18
66
3.666666667
2.9305691
0
12
1
2
3
5
9
12
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
8.4506555
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
LA
THOMAS WILSON
18
60
3.333333333
3.1248529
0
13
1
1
2.5
4
8
13
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
4.9320539
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
2
MA
THOMAS WILSON
18
129
7.166666667
5.4583988
0
22
1
2
7.5
9
14
22
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
11.269497
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
3
RD
GATES
22
83
3.772727273
3.6636154
0
16
0
1
3
5
8
9
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.366256
F
6.5345368
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
3
RD
JACKSON
21
92
4.380952381
3.59828
0
12
0
2
4
7
9
11
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.394349
F
7.8/ 6K
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
3
LA
JACKSON
21
80
3.80952381
3.3409437
0
12
0
2
3
5
10
10
1.507762082
2.05317
2.851877
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
3
RD
SIMS
21
60
2.857142857
2.6699385
0
9
0
1
2
4
7
8
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.394349
F
4.1362866
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
3
LA
SIMS
21
60
2.857142857
2.8859264
0
11
1
1
2
4
7
8
1.507762082
2.05317
2.851877
F
3.0117523
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
3
MA
SIMS
21
92
4.380952381
3.4996598
0
11
1
1
4
7
10
11
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.466733
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
4
RD
FU LLER
17
69
4.058823529
3.3254809
0
11
1
1
3
6
10
11
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
7.7104507
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
4
LA
FU LLER
17
62
3.647058824
3.2392356
0
10
0
1
3
6
9
10
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.884479
F
4.5464243
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
4
MA
FU LLER
17
75
4.411764706
4.5146819
0
16
0
1
2
6
12
16
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.653184
F
4.2794095
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
4
RD
RICHARDS
16
39
2.4375
2 1592823
0
6
0
0.5
2
4.5
6
6
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
F
3.5223442
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
4
LA
RICHARDS
16
56
3.5
3.6514837
0
14
0
1
2.5
4.5
9
14
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
4.121365
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
4
MA
RICHARDS
16
77
4.8125
3.9364747
0
14
0
2.5
4
5.5
12
14
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.707927
F
4 . , :r>6
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
4
RD
WOODS
17
63
3.705882353
2 054407
1
7
1
2
4
5
7
7
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
6.8223524
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
5
RD
SCOTT
19
121
6.368421053
4.2322902
0
14
1
3
6
10
12
14
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
F
12.473039
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
5
LA
SCOTT
19
100
5.263157895
4.0939265
0
13
0
1
5
9
10
13
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.839135
F
8.1778338
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
FINCH ELEMENT
5
MA
SCOTT
19
134
7.052631579
4.1429148
0
15
2
3
7
10
13
15
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.570354
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GARDEN HILLS
1
MA
HERNANDEZ
16
77
4.8125
4 0697051
0
15
0
2
4
6.5
12
15
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
5.98252
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GARDEN HILLS
1
LA
MCCLAIN
16
51
3.1875
1.4244882
1
5
1
2
3.5
4
5
5
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
3.2546241
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GARDEN HILLS
3
MA
BROWN
17
66
3.882352941
3.0183264
0
11
1
1
3
6
8
11
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
3.4035224
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GARDEN HILLS
4
LA
HAIDER
16
54
3.375
3.5378901
0
13
0
1
2.5
4
10
13
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
3.8754478
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GARDEN HILLS
4
RD
HILL
12
38
3.166666667
3.8098755
0
14
0
1
2
3.5
6
14
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.413641
F
4.5919684
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GARDEN HILLS
4
LA
HILL
12
38
3.166666667
4.3239993
0
14
0
0.5
1
4.5
9
14
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.165912
F
3.0012854
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GARDEN HILLS
5
RD
BRIGGS
25
77
3.08
2.3079572
0
8
0
1
3
4
7
7
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.233248
F
5.3154286
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
RD
CO K LOW
16
67
4.1875
2 6132674
0
11
2
2
4
6
7
11
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.198343
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
LA
CO K LOW
16
101
6.3125
2.5747168
2
13
3
5
6
8
9
13
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
9.6736439
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
MA
CO K LOW
16
99
6.1875
4.0036442
0
15
2
3
5
9
12
15
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
8.6668262
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
RD
ELLERBE
20
135
6.75
5.6556911
0
19
1
2.5
5
9.5
17
19
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.080339
F
'if, 01 2483
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
LA
ELLERBE
20
140
7
4.7903412
0
17
1
4
6
10
14
16
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.909351
F
12.394333
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
MA
ELLERBE
20
145
7.25
5.5428949
0
19
0
2
7.5
11
15
17
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.122509
F
12.008873
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
RD
MOORE
20
55
2.75
1.9701723
0
6
0
1
3
4.5
5
5.5
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.080339
F
5.0094861
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
MA
MOORE
20
186
9.3
6 9517132
0
28
1.5
4.5
7.5
13
19
24
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.122509
F
16.483308
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
RD
ROBINSON
20
60
3
2.4494897
0
10
0
2
2.5
4
6.5
8.5
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.080339
F
5.7596734
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
LA
ROBINSON
20
76
3.8
3 334035
0
12
0
1
3
5.5
9
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.909351
F
5.0454101
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
1
MA
ROBINSON
20
149
7.45
4.3222192
1
15
2
4
7
11
14
15
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.122509
F
12.445403
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
RD
GRAYER
20
45
2.25
3.0240266
0
13
0
0
2
2.5
5.5
9.5
0.914374058
1.381785
1.841304
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
LA
GRAYER
20
58
2.9
1.9973667
0
7
1
2
2
4
6.5
7
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.481461
F
4.0803277
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
MA
GRAYER
20
99
4.95
3.2521248
0
12
0.5
2.5
4.5
8
8.5
11
1.728771036
2.047211
3.102082
F
7.0367803
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
RD
JORDAN
20
65
3.25
2 5520889
0
11
0.5
2
3
4.5
6
9
0.914374058
1.381785
1.841304
F
7.5592347
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
LA
JORDAN
20
98
4.9
3.1271309
0
13
1.5
3
4.5
6
9.5
12
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.481461
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
MA
JORDAN
20
93
4.65
3.3603728
0
11
1
1.5
4
8
9
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.102082
F
6.3814298
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
RD
KAY
20
47
2.35
1.9269556
0
7
1
1
2
3
6
7
0.914374058
1.381785
1.841304
F
4.6463919
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
LA
KAY
20
90
4.5
3
0
10
0.5
2
4
7
8
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.481461
F
8.2102241
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
MA
KAY
20
100
5
4.1039134
0
14
1
2
3.5
8
11
13
1.728771036
2.047211
3.102082
F
7.1460054
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
RD
KEYTON
22
65
2.954545455
1.9875151
1
8
1
1
3
4
6
6
0.914374058
1.381785
1.798167
F
6.9252832
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
MA
KEYTON
22
88
4
3.2659863
0
11
0
1
4
6
7
11
1.728771036
2.047211
3.038172
F
5.203669
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
RD
POPLUS
21
51
2.428571429
2.0389073
0
7
0
1
2
4
5
6
0.914374058
1.381785
1.818965
F
5.0217105
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
LA
POPLUS
21
55
2.619047619
2.6921402
0
12
0
1
2
3
5
5
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.45345
F
3.4379929
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
2
MA
POPLUS
21
93
4.428571429
3.6820026
0
16
0
3
4
6
8
9
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
6.0433633
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
RD
DONALDSON
17
191
11.23529412
6.3199032
0
19
0
8
12
17
19
19
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
22.229714
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
LA
DONALDSON
17
175
10.29411765
8.4021181
0
26
0
4
10
17
19
26
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
17.644458
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
MA
DONALDSON
17
276
16.23529412
8.5112382
0
31
0
13
18
22
23
31
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
24.337023
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
RD
HUNT
17
160
9.411764706
7 730288
0
25
1
3
9
12
24
25
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
18.20136
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
LA
HUNT
17
128
7.529411765
5.9594216
0
19
0
3
6
12
17
19
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
12.09247
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
MA
HUNT
17
174
10.23529412
7.7421687
0
25
2
4
9
14
25
25
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
14.169323
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
RD
NEELY
17
94
5.529411765
4.5705258
0
15
0
1
5
9
12
15
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
9.6248654
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
LA
NEELY
17
74
4.352941176
4.7162111
0
14
0
1
2
8
11
14
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
MA
NEELY
17
66
3.882352941
4.4000334
0
12
0
0
2
7
11
12
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
3.4035224
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
RD
WARD
17
145
8.529411765
5.4785679
0
20
2
4
9
11
19
20
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
16.252157
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
LA
WARD
17
128
7.529411765
5.5690848
0
19
2
3
6
11
16
19
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
12.09247
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
3
MA
WARD
17
167
9.823529412
6.5882025
0
27
3
5
11
13
16
27
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
13.471539
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
RD
BOAKYE
26
392
15.07692308
7.1884523
0
26
7
11
16
20
25
26
0.994595544
1.6385729
1.958647
F
43.822318
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
LA
BOAKYE
26
460
17.69230769
8.9789497
0
41
8
13
17
23
25
35
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.601338
F
40.84624
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
MA
BOAKYE
26
712
27.38461538
12 643028
0
47
11
19
30
37
42
43
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.312746
F
53.208801
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
RD
BYSE
24
150
6.25
4 2554313
0
15
1
2.5
6
8.5
12
15
0.994595544
1.6385729
1.998012
F
15.712525
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
LA
BYSE
24
208
8.666666667
4.0180751
1
17
4
5.5
8
12
14
14
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.650184
F
17.496536
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
MA
BYSE
24
217
9.041666667
6.9812118
1
24
2
3.5
7.5
13
22
24
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.371476
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
RD
FREEMAN
26
149
5.730769231
3.0926712
1
14
2
4
5.5
7
11
11
0.994595544
1.6385729
1.958647
F
14.738338
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
LA
FREEMAN
26
187
7.192307692
4.3636611
0
19
2
4
7
10
13
14
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.601338
F
14.51357
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
MA
FREEMAN
26
222
8.538461538
4.6923834
0
22
3
5
9
11
14
16
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.312746
F
13.899732
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
RD
MITCHELL
26
150
5.769230769
4.2923904
0
16
1
2
4.5
9
13
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
1.958647
F
14.858025
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
LA
MITCHELL
26
215
8.269230769
6 0633832
0
23
2
3
8
12
18
20
1.405105438
2.0332046
2 601338
F
17.214357
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
4
MA
MITCHELL
26
225
8.653846154
5.6635135
0
23
2
4
7.5
12
18
18
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.312746
F
14.140399
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
RD
BANK
23
252
10.95652174
5.4479209
0
24
6
7
11
14
18
18
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
25.757104
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
LA
BANK
23
265
11.52173913
5.79082
1
25
4
7
12
16
18
19
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.71118
F
23.706281
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
MA
BANK
23
411
17.86956522
7.4912333
0
30
8
14
17
25
26
27
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.41133
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
RD
BOWSER
23
204
8.869565217
4.5557591
0
18
4
5
9
13
14
14
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
20.283386
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
LA
BOWSER
23
236
10.26086957
5.7699645
1
21
3
7
9
15
18
20
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.71118
F
20.743027
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
MA
BOWSER
23
388
16.86956522
9 0569127
2
33
3
13
17
21
31
31
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.41133
F
28.449886
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
RD
JORDAN
23
208
9.043478261
5547139
3
23
3
4
9
12
18
19
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
20.739529
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
LA
JORDAN
23
238
10.34782609
5.5727315
1
22
4
7
9
14
19
20
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.71118
F
20.94739
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
MA
JORDAN
23
437
19
8.1296315
3
34
9
13
19
25
31
31
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.41133
F
32.478595
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
RD
MACON
23
176
7.652173913
5.7335432
0
19
0
3
5
14
15
15
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
17.090384
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
LA
MACON
23
177
7.695652174
5.3549873
0
18
0
4
7
11
14
18
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.71118
F
14.7143=1
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GIDEONS ELEME
5
MA
MACON
23
388
16.86956522
10 554208
0
39
1
7
20
25
26
30
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.41133
F
28.449886
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
1
MA
HANEY
17
61
3.588235294
2 4509902
0
8
0
2
3
5
7
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
3.7030464
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
1
RD
TOLLMAN
18
52
2.888888889
2.0259751
0
7
1
1
2
4
6
7
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.134418
F
5.1477992
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
1
LA
TOLLMAN
18
55
3.055555556
2.4125218
0
8
1
1
2.5
5
7
8
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.980013
F
3.1645845
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
2
RD
LEWIS
15
66
4.4
2.1313979
0
8
1
3
4
6
7
8
0.914374058
1.381785
1.9847
F
9.7698062
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
2
LA
LEWIS
15
97
6.466666667
3.2703575
2
13
3
4
6
9
12
13
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
11.506494
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
2
MA
LEWIS
15
151
10.06666667
4.9923751
1
18
4
6
10
14
18
18
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
15.773915
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
2
RD
MOORE
14
67
4.785714286
3.4458129
1
12
1
3
3
8
10
12
0.914374058
1.381785
2.022267
F
10.482983
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
2
LA
MOORE
14
73
5.214285714
3 9061799
0
11
1
2
4
10
10
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.708366
F
8.4117195
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
2
MA
MOORE
14
106
7.571428571
3.6101201
2
14
2
5
8
9
13
14
1.728771036
2.047211
3.370191
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
2
RD
SIZEMORE
13
65
5
2.7080128
0
9
1
3
5
7
8
9
0.914374058
1.381785
2.064089
F
10.660801
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
2
LA
SIZEMORE
13
116
8.923076923
5.8943693
1
21
3
5
8
11
19
21
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.760806
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
2
MA
SIZEMORE
13
101
7.769230769
5.3253145
0
18
2
4
6
13
14
18
1.728771036
2.047211
3.432154
F
10.638467
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
3
RD
SHANKS
16
58
3.625
2.0615528
0
7
1
2.5
3.5
5
7
7
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
5.2560716
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
3
MA
SHANKS
16
75
4.6875
3 628016
1
15
1
1.5
4.5
6
8
15
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
4.6255794
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
GROVE PARK EL
5
LA
GREGORY
5
22
4.4
1.5165751
2
6
2
4
5
5
6
6
1.434674213
2.0406349
4.172473
F
3.2493172
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
1
MA
BROWN
18
59
3.277777778
2.1910394
1
8
1
2
3
4
8
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
3.167556
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
2
MA
CUMMINGS
15
50
3.333333333
2.2253946
0
8
1
2
3
5
7
8
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
3.0355655
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
2
RD
RIVERS
19
61
3.210526316
2.2255823
1
8
1
1
2
5
7
8
0.914374058
1.381785
1.865384
F
7.2433092
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
2
LA
RIVERS
19
66
3.473684211
2.9129676
0
9
0
1
2
5
8
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
5.4203024
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
2
MA
RIVERS
19
89
4.684210526
2.9259876
1
10
1
2
5
6
10
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
6.2926891
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
2
MA
SNEED
16
61
3.8125
2.4005208
0
9
1
2
3.5
5
8
9
1.728771036
2.047211
3.264179
F
4.0713517
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
2
LA
TO LIVER
15
52
3.466666667
2.1668498
1
7
1
2
3
6
6
7
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
4.8003782
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
2
MA
TO LIVER
15
82
5.466666667
4.0684617
0
16
1
2
5
8
10
16
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
7.0714781
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
3
RD
HILLMAN
1
g
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1.172489269
1.8664211
6.771753
F
4.1938611
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
3
RD
HOUSTON
18
68
3.777777778
6.5847914
0
28
0
0
2
3
9
28
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
5.9221915
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
3
LA
HOUSTON
18
78
4.333333333
3.7885276
1
17
1
2
3.5
5
9
17
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
.' , • I' J
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
3
RD
LEVEL
16
53
3.3125
2.9375443
0
10
0
1
2.5
5
7
10
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
4.5863407
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
3
LA
LEWIS
18
57
3.166666667
2.2294816
0
8
0
2
3
5
6
8
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
3.4279363
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
3
RD
PANNELL
8
30
3.75
3.2403703
0
10
0
1.5
3
5.5
10
10
1.172489269
1.8664211
3.152128
F
3.9060324
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
3
RD
WARE
16
47
2.9375
2.1746647
0
6
0
1.5
2.5
5
6
6
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
3.7826635
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
3
LA
WARE
16
64
4
3.8470768
0
13
0
1
3
6.5
9
13
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
4.8553951
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
4
RD
JONES
16
84
5.25
5.8366657
0
23
0
1.5
3
7.5
10
23
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
F
10.388075
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
4
RD
PAYNE
17
47
2.764705882
5.3095364
0
22
0
0
1
3
6
22
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
4.4540904
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
4
RD
TOOMBS
16
68
4.25
3 9242834
0
13
0
0.5
3.5
7
9
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
F
7.946926
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
5
RD
ADAMS JOHNSON
20
109
5.45
5.2060188
0
21
0
1.5
4.5
7
12
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.362743
F
10.550799
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
5
RD
MARTIN
19
52
2.736842105
4.8630364
0
15
0
0
1
1
12
15
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
F
3.8158407
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERITAGE ACAD
5
RD
WINESTOCK
18
68
3.777777778
3.9934587
0
16
0
1
2.5
6
8
16
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.429093
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
1
LA
HOLLIWAY
19
79
4.157894737
2.8918114
1
11
1
1
4
5
9
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
5.718765
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
1
RD
MILLER
20
42
2.1
1.3726655
0
5
0
1
2
3
3.5
4.5
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.080339
F
3.0589991
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
1
LA
MILLER
20
65
3.25
2.0994987
0
7
0
1.5
3.5
5
5.5
6.5
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.909351
F
3.732314 i
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
1
MA
MILLER
20
94
4.7
3 262224
0
11
1
1.5
4
7.5
9
11
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.122509
F
6.4431124
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
2
RD
CARROLL
21
51
2.428571429
1.5352989
0
6
0
2
3
3
4
5
0.914374058
1.381785
1.818965
F
5.0217105
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
2
LA
CARROLL
21
69
3.285714286
2.2614787
0
8
1
1
3
5
6
7
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.45345
F
5.2012781
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
2
MA
CARROLL
21
78
3.714285714
3.5657097
0
11
0
1
2
6
8
9
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
4.4444718
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
3
RD
WO MACK
18
58
3.222222222
2.8191687
0
11
1
1
2.5
4
8
11
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
4.6593346
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
3
LA
WO MACK
18
91
5.055555556
3.1524448
1
12
2
3
4
6
11
12
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
7.3311089
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
3
MA
WO MACK
18
100
5.555555556
2 525685
2
9
3
3
4.5
8
9
9
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
6.4198364
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HERNDON ELEME
4
LA
EVERETT
24
65
2.708333333
2 7737773
0
10
1
1
1.5
4
8
8
1.405105438
2.0332046
2 650184
F
3.1401104
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HOPE ELEMENTA
1
MA
MILES
11
50
4.545454545
2.8412545
0
9
2
2
4
6
9
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.601376
F
4.5281777
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
1
RD
POWERS
20
45
2.25
1 860249
0
8
0.5
1
2
3
4.5
6.5
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.080339
F
3.5091 1 1S
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
1
LA
POWERS
20
72
3.6
2.7606254
0
10
0.5
2
3
5
8
9.5
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.909351
F
4.5861025
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
1
MA
POWERS
20
74
3.7
2.5772282
1
11
1
1.5
3
5.5
6.5
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.122509
F
4.2604611
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
2
MA
BUTLER
21
85
4.047619048
3 007926
0
11
1
2
3
5
9
9
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
5.1906212
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
2
RD
SEALS
16
38
2.375
1 995829
0
7
0
0.5
2.5
4
4
7
0.914374058
1.381785
1.950713
F
4.2282294
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
2
LA
SEALS
16
48
3
2 4221203
0
9
1
1
2.5
5
5
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.618646
F
3.8804242
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
3
RD
MCNAMEE
17
94
5.529411765
6.1858472
0
21
1
1
3
9
16
21
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
3
LA
MCNAMEE
17
80
4.705882353
3.4052295
0
11
1
2
4
6
11
11
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
6.4223555
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
3
MA
MCNAMEE
17
63
3.705882353
4.0737683
0
18
1
2
3
4
6
18
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
3.1044724
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
3
RD
PASIVE
17
74
4.352941176
3.8881419
0
14
0
2
3
6
10
14
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
7.0259275
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
3
LA
PASIVE
17
82
4.823529412
3.5396909
0
13
1
2
4
7
10
13
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
6.6586102
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
3
MA
PASIVE
17
75
4.411764706
3.5365736
1
14
1
2
4
5
10
14
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
4.3006725
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
4
RD
ABELLA
20
117
5.85
5 3239775
0
19
1
1.5
6
7
15
18
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.093784
F
13.251793
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
4
LA
ABELLA
20
223
11.15
8.2734515
0
27
2
4
11
17
24
26
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.769021
F
21.434387
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
4
MA
ABELLA
20
181
9.05
4.9997368
2
19
3
4.5
9
13
17
18
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.514361
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
4
RD
AHMED
16
125
7.8125
7.6001645
0
23
0
1
5.5
14
20
23
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
F
16.643518
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
4
LA
AHMED
16
88
5.5
4.2110965
0
13
0
2.5
4.5
8
12
13
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
8.0560404
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
4
MA
AHMED
16
136
8.5
4.5018515
1
17
2
6.5
8
12
15
17
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.707927
F
10.840915
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
4
RD
TERRY
17
122
7.176470588
6.0749001
0
20
0
3
6
11
16
20
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
15.555319
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
4
LA
TERRY
17
129
7.588235294
8.3446002
1
32
1
2
5
10
18
32
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.884479
F
12.538678
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUMPHRIES ELE
4
MA
TERRY
17
190
11.17647059
11 091862
0
39
1
3
7
15
28
39
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.653184
F
15.68865
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
RD
ELLIS
16
47
2.9375
3.0652624
0
10
0
1
2
4
9
10
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.198343
F
4.9838615
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
LA
ELLIS
16
76
4.75
3.0221405
0
12
0
3
5
6.5
7
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
6.464134
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
MA
ELLIS
16
99
6.1875
4 369878
2
17
3
3
5
8
15
17
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
8.6668262
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
RD
GREGOIRE
16
56
3.5
3.1622777
0
9
0
1
2
6.5
8
9
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.198343
F
6.4935843
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
LA
GREGOIRE
16
107
6.6875
3.68273
2
14
3
3.5
6.5
8
13
14
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
10.443926
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
MA
GREGOIRE
16
94
5.875
2.5787594
3
12
3
4
5.5
7.5
9
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
8.0567566
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
RD
JAMES
18
73
4.055555556
2.8997408
0
12
1
2
3.5
6
8
12
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.134418
F
8.4690199
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
LA
JAMES
18
106
5.888888889
3.9688328
1
19
2
4
5
7
9
19
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.980013
F
8.3375326
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
MA
JAMES
18
129
7.166666667
6.0609648
0
26
0
4
6
8
15
26
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
11.220064
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
RD
PHILLIPS
14
52
3.714285714
3.0237158
0
11
1
2
3
4
8
11
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.275518
F
6.6121791
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
LA
PHILLIPS
14
71
5.071428571
3.5833866
0
14
2
4
4
6
11
14
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.164381
F
6.6642436
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
MA
PHILLIPS
14
119
8.5
5.0191939
0
21
4
5
8.5
10
14
21
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
1
LA
ROSSER
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1.603036826
1.9473378
7.44505
F
3.2849786
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
2
RD
POLLOCK
24
69
2.875
2.5760182
0
8
0
0.5
3
5.5
6
7
0.914374058
1.381785
1.760541
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
2
LA
POLLOCK
24
106
4.416666667
2 244155
1
9
1
3
4.5
6
7
8
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.380194
F
8.758221
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
2
MA
POLLOCK
24
115
4.791666667
3.6710284
0
15
1
2.5
4
6.5
10
11
1.728771036
2.047211
2.982427
F
7.3295147
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
2
MA
TRU ITT
23
80
3.47826087
2.0641874
0
8
1
2
3
5
6
7
1.728771036
2.047211
3.00939
F
4.0983849
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
2
RD
WILLIS
24
50
2.083333333
1 6396359
0
5
0
1
2
3.5
4
5
0.914374058
1.381785
1.760541
F
4.1444275
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
3
RD
MATH IS
16
49
3.0625
3 151058
0
13
0
1
2
4.5
5
13
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
4.0505559
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
3
RD
NEAL
14
51
3.642857143
5 838956
0
18
0
0
1
3
12
18
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
4.9524034
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
3
RD
STROZIER
15
79
5.266666667
3.9725247
1
13
1
2
4
7
13
13
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
8.4957682
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
3
MA
STROZIER
15
58
3.866666667
2.8751812
0
9
1
2
3
7
9
9
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
3.172083
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
4
RD
PATTERSON
23
47
2.043478261
2.3640924
0
11
0
0
2
3
3
5
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.019594
F
3.069906
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
4
LA
PATTERSON
23
72
3.130434783
2.5460191
0
10
0
1
2
4
7
7
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.676963
F
4.0696293
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
4
MA
PATTERSON
23
85
3.695652174
2 6532104
0
9
0
2
3
7
7
7
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.403674
F
3.5727925
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
4
RD
SWEDARSKY
19
85
4.473684211
4.7301447
0
21
0
2
4
6
9
21
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.122339
F
9.2550022
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
4
LA
SWEDARSKY
19
89
4.684210526
4 055896
0
14
0
1
3
9
10
14
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.804453
F
7.0299309
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
4
MA
SWEDARSKY
19
116
6.105263158
3.3647641
1
13
1
4
6
9
10
13
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.556963
F
7.5437106
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
5
RD
NGUYEN
23
259
11.26086957
5.1805352
3
19
5
7
11
17
18
18
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
26.555354
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
5
LA
NGUYEN
23
129
5.608695652
3.9742253
0
14
1
2
4
9
10
12
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.71118
L F
9.8096448
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HUTCHINSON EL
5
MA
NGUYEN
23
345
15
9.3029809
1
36
5
7
14
17
29
33
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.41133
F
24.914487
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
IMAGINE WESLE
1
MA
LANIER ERICA
21
70
3.333333333
2 4562845
0
8
0
2
3
4
7
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.089384
F
3.5456044
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
IMAGINE WESLE
2
RD
MUHAMMAD D
21
41
1.952380952
1.9098741
0
6
0
0
1
3
5
5
0.914374058
1.381785
1.818965
F
3.4424642
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
IMAGINE WESLE
3
MA
JAMES LOMACK
23
83
3.608695652
2.9347314
0
13
1
1
3
5
8
8
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.395906
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
JACKSON ELEME
2
MA
DEWBERRY
21
68
3.238095238
1.4800257
0
6
1
3
3
4
5
5
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
JACKSON ELEME
2
LA
HESS
21
52
2.476190476
1 9651 73
0
7
0
1
2
4
5
6
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.45345
F
3.060146
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
JACKSON ELEME
2
LA
OFFEN
21
52
2.476190476
2.2498677
0
8
0
1
1
4
5
6
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.45345
F
3.060146
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
JACKSON ELEME
2
MA
OFFEN
21
81
3.857142857
2.9880715
0
10
1
2
3
6
8
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
4.7642501
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KIMBERLY ELEM
1
LA
MOSLEY
14
53
3.785714286
3 8466483
0
14
0
1
2.5
5
9
14
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.164381
F
4.1938441
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KIMBERLY ELEM
1
MA
SPEAR
14
68
4.857142857
4.2941309
0
14
1
2
4
5
14
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
5.677659
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KIMBERLY ELEM
2
RD
COLEMAN
14
29
2.071428571
1.7743595
0
6
0
0
2
3
4
6
0.914374058
1.381785
2.022267
F
3.1331225
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KIMBERLY ELEM
2
MA
COLEMAN
14
57
4.071428571
3.0499505
0
9
0
2
3.5
6
9
9
1.728771036
2.047211
3.370191
F
4.2816407
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KIMBERLY ELEM
3
RD
SAUNDERS
19
58
3.052631579
2.4146241
0
8
0
1
2
5
7
8
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.457048
F
4.3909439
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KIMBERLY ELEM
3
LA
SAUNDERS
19
68
3.578947368
3.1325494
0
14
1
1
3
4
8
14
1.507762082
2.05317
2.920851
F
4 X.
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KIMBERLY ELEM
3
MA
SAUNDERS
19
84
4.421052632
3.9484989
0
16
0
1
4
6
11
16
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.548468
F
4.5632601
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
1
MA
BAG LEY
14
56
4
2 7174649
0
9
0
3
3
6
8
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
4.1123986
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
1
RD
GALE
18
71
3.944444444
3.6213781
0
13
1
2
3
4
12
13
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.134418
F
8.1527132
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
1
LA
GALE
18
76
4.222222222
2.9416993
0
11
0
3
4.5
6
7
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.980013
F
5.7063866
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
1
MA
GALE
18
90
5
3 531372
0
13
1
3
4.5
6
11
13
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
6.7336666
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
1
RD
LOGAN
18
61
3.388888889
2 304443
0
8
0
1
3.5
5
6
8
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.134418
F
6.5711795
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
1
LA
LOGAN
18
77
4.277777778
3.4437592
0
13
0
2
3.5
7
8
13
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.980013
F
5.8274248
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
1
MA
LOGAN
18
114
6.333333333
4
2
14
3
3
4.5
9
14
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
9.4945264
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
1
RD
SMITH P
14
36
2.571428571
3.0562492
0
9
0
0
1.5
5
8
9
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.275518
F
3.7429141
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
1
MA
VINES
18
58
3.222222222
2.4627951
0
9
1
2
2
4
7
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
3.0525202
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
3
RD
ROBERTS
20
54
2.7
2.0799798
0
7
0
1
2
4.5
5.5
6.5
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.424523
F
3.6600721
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
3
RD
SMITH G
19
53
2.789473684
2.2004784
0
8
0
1
3
4
6
8
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.457048
F
3.7763566
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
4
RD
EDIH
1
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
5.910314
F
7.3267441
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
4
LA
EDIH
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1.405105438
2.0332046
7.504719
F
3.2435962
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
4
RD
TOWNSEND
15
48
3.2
3.9856887
0
13
0
0
1
6
9
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.263829
F
5.2127645
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
5
RD
LOVE
18
52
2.888888889
2.0832353
0
8
1
1
2
4
6
8
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.429093
F
4.0668585
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
5
LA
LOVE
18
61
3.388888889
2.6819415
0
10
0
2
3
6
6
10
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.877621
F
4.0629662
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
5
MA
LOVE
18
102
5.666666667
7.0793818
0
27
0
1
2.5
8
16
27
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.618183
F
6.4269083
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
M AJONES ELE
5
LA
MOON
20
68
3.4
4.3334683
0
18
0
0
2
5
8
14
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.803574
F
4.3070929
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
1
LA
WILLIAMS
18
56
3.111111111
1.9967294
0
8
0
2
3
4
6
8
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.980013
F
3.2856227
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
1
MA
WILLIAMS
18
86
4.777777778
3.6550618
0
12
0
2
4
7
10
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
6.2735233
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
2
RD
ETHERIDGE
20
42
2.1
1.3337719
0
6
1
1
2
3
3.5
5
0.914374058
1.381785
1.841304
F
3.8372689
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
2
LA
ETHERIDGE
20
64
3.2
1.8806494
0
7
0.5
2
3
4.5
5.5
6.5
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.481461
F
4.8546832
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
2
MA
WORMLEY
20
65
3.25
2.1734038
0
9
1
2
3
4.5
6
7.5
1.728771036
2.047211
3.102082
F
3.3231274
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
3
RD
DOUGLAS
19
102
5.368421053
2.4085617
2
11
3
3
5
7
9
11
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.457048
F
9.799312
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
3
LA
DOUGLAS
19
104
5.473684211
3.5958065
1
16
2
3
5
7
10
16
1.507762082
2.05317
2.920851
F
8.4196894
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
3
MA
DOUGLAS
19
119
6.263157895
4.5196129
0
14
0
3
5
9
14
14
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.548468
F
7.863445
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
3
RD
MCADOO
18
77
4.277777778
3 7855073
0
14
0
1
4
6
10
14
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
7.0587626
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
3
LA
MCADOO
18
68
3.777777778
4.1946122
0
14
0
0
2
6
10
14
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
4.6907274
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
5
RD
DAVIS L
18
89
4.944444444
3.6697848
0
13
1
2
4.5
7
13
13
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.429093
F
8.8383333
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
5
LA
DAVIS L
18
84
4.666666667
3.2539569
1
12
1
1
5
7
10
12
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.877621
F
6.7195668
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MILES ELEMENT
5
MA
DAVIS L
18
84
4.666666667
3.06786
0
9
0
2
5
8
8
9
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.618183
F
4.754008
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MORNINGSIDE E
1
RD
BLISS
18
48
2.666666667
2 057983
0
7
0
1
2
4
7
7
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.134418
F
4.5151857
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MORNINGSIDE E
2
MA
NOSSOKOFF
19
61
3.210526316
5.4526135
0
22
0
0
2
2
13
22
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
"-. ! 54837
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MORNINGSIDE E
3
LA
HALL
17
53
3.117647059
2 5952445
0
10
0
1
2
4
7
10
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
3.2329158
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
MORNINGSIDE E
3
LA
HENRY
17
66
3.882352941
5.8724181
0
20
0
0
1
6
16
20
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
4.7685719
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
1
LA
CATCHINGSSHINT
16
63
3.9375
3.5677958
0
11
0
1
3
6.5
9
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
4.7951889
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
1
MA
CATCHINGS SHINT
16
56
3.5
3.3466401
0
12
0
0.5
3
5.5
7
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
3.4202277
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
1
MA
WY ATT SELENA
16
76
4.75
3.7505555
1
14
2
2.5
3.5
5.5
13
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
5.8605061
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
2
RD
JOHSON ELIZABET
18
50
2.777777778
2.9416993
0
12
0
1
2
4
6
12
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
L F
5.7214058
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
2
LA
JOHSON ELIZABET
18
89
4.944444444
3.8113179
0
15
1
2
4
7
10
15
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
8.8772257
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
2
MA
JOHSON ELIZABET
18
99
5.5
4 69355
0
17
0
2
4.5
8
15
17
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
7.8154962
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
2
RD
SHIPMANTERANCE
19
49
2.578947368
1.8048019
0
7
1
1
2
4
5
7
0.914374058
1.381785
1.865384
F
5.2509668
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
2
LA
SHIPMANTERANCE
19
59
3.105263158
2.6852423
0
11
0
1
3
4
6
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
2
MA
SHIPMANTERANCE
19
69
3.631578947
2.2412924
1
8
1
2
3
5
8
8
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
4.0514378
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
2
RD
SPARKS TAMA RA
21
57
2.714285714
2 532644
0
10
0
1
2
4
5
7
0.914374058
1.381785
1.818965
F
5.9692584
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
2
LA
SPARKS TAMA RA
21
103
4.904761905
4.3347983
0
17
0
2
5
7
10
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.45345
F
9.4835422
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
2
MA
SPARKS TAMA RA
21
125
5.952380952
4.6741437
0
15
0
3
6
9
14
14
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
9.454332
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
3
RD
JOHNSON PELITA
22
98
4.454545455
5 7215322
0
25
0
1
3
6
11
11
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.366256
F
8.2479823
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
3
LA
JOHNSON PELITA
22
88
4
3.4086724
0
13
0
2
4
6
8
10
1.507762082
2.05317
2.820974
F
5.603.- . 54
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
3
MA
JOHNSON PELITA
22
108
4.909090909
6.0230438
0
21
0
1
2.5
5
15
19
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.430112
F
5.851152
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKSIDE ELEM
5
RD
JOHNSON TENE
23
54
2.347826087
4 744458
0
23
0
0
1
3
4
5
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.279954
F
3.1780173
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
RD
ALAMUTU
13
59
4.538461538
5.1577674
0
17
1
1
2
6
11
17
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.320626
F
8.3655684
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
LA
ALAMUTU
13
67
5.153846154
4.5064057
0
16
1
3
4
6
12
16
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.22332
F
6.5744243
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
MA
ALAMUTU
13
90
6.923076923
6.2910192
2
24
2
3
5
10
13
24
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.452861
F
9.1065734
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
RD
LEWIS
12
59
4.916666667
5 316498
0
17
1
1
2.5
7
13
17
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.37126
F
8.9164669
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
LA
LEWIS
12
78
6.5
4.4822884
2
14
2
3
5
9.5
14
14
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.289481
F
8.7111634
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
MA
LEWIS
12
82
6.833333333
4.7831776
0
16
1
3
7
9.5
13
16
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.522474
F
8.5975855
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
RD
MACK
13
47
3.615384615
2.7850333
0
7
1
1
3
7
7
7
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.320626
F
S.I 323856
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
LA
MACK
13
56
4.307692308
3.3262746
0
12
0
3
3
6
8
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.22332
F
5.0037464
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
RD
PUCKETT
11
60
5.454545455
4.4578837
0
13
1
2
3
10
10
13
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.428651
F
S. 7338707
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
LA
PUCKETT
11
76
6.909090909
6 315925
1
18
1
2
5
12
17
18
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.36447
F
9.0370506
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
1
MA
PUCKETT
11
98
8.909090909
5.9406152
1
21
2
4
10
12
15
21
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.601376
F
11.591585
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
2
RD
JEFFERSON
21
109
5.19047619
5.8704263
0
23
0
1
3
6
12
14
0.914374058
1.381785
1.818965
F
14.18134
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
2
LA
JEFFERSON
21
103
4.904761905
5.0190115
0
17
0
1
3
6
13
13
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.45345
F
9.4835422
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
2
MA
JEFFERSON
21
153
7.285714286
7.0579236
0
26
0
1
6
12
16
19
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
12.43893
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
2
RD
MATHIS
14
70
5
6.2017367
0
18
0
1
2
9
16
18
0.914374058
1.381785
2.022267
F
11.063236
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
2
LA
MATH IS
14
83
5.928571429
5.1659281
0
15
0
2
5
10
14
15
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.708366
F
9.9542728
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
2
MA
MATHIS
14
64
4.571428571
3.4354327
0
12
0
2
4
7
8
12
1.728771036
2.047211
3.370191
F
5.1954834
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
2
RD
WAY
21
97
4.619047619
3.7480153
0
11
1
2
3
7
11
11
0.914374058
1.381785
1.818965
F
12.286244
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
2
LA
WAY
21
83
3.952380952
3 338805
0
12
0
2
4
5
7
12
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.45345
F
6.9645633
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
2
MA
WAY
21
134
6.380952381
4.3066947
1
17
2
3
5
9
12
12
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
10.413667
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
RD
EDWARDS
2
18
9
12 727922
0
18
0
0
9
18
18
18
1.172489269
1.8664211
5.131766
F
5.9310152
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
RD
HOLLO WAY
13
98
7.538461538
5 501748
0
18
1
4
6
10
17
18
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.725445
F
13 333.: 0/
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
MA
HOLLO WAY
13
61
4.692307692
6.0330287
0
19
0
1
2
6
15
19
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.89835
F
4.1765654
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
RD
JEMISON
13
76
5.846153846
3.9125046
0
13
0
4
6
9
10
13
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.725445
F
9.0285828
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
LA
JEMISON
13
66
5.076923077
5.5446902
0
17
0
1
3
9
13
17
1.507762082
2.05317
3.216103
F
8.2677678
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
MA
JEMISON
13
84
6.461538462
8.4223451
0
23
0
0
1
9
19
23
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.89835
F
6.7983873
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
RD
MUWANDI
14
86
6.142857143
2.3157369
3
11
3
5
5.5
7
10
11
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
9.9642111
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
LA
MUWANDI
14
82
5.857142857
4.1110946
0
13
1
2
5.5
8
12
13
1.507762082
2.05317
3.15396
F
7.9262275
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
MA
MUWANDI
14
94
6.714285714
4.4622963
1
15
1
2
7
10
13
15
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.82471
F
7.4437046
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
RD
SHORTER
14
158
11.28571429
8 0806376
0
28
2
5
10
16
21
28
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
20.274215
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
LA
SHORTER
14
148
10.57142857
7.1866788
1
22
2
4
10
16
22
22
1.507762082
2.05317
3.15396
F
16.517451
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
3
MA
SHORTER
14
197
14.07142857
8.5975335
1
30
3
9
14
19
26
30
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.82471
F
183/5781
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
4
RD
BLAKE
18
131
7.277777778
4.2813626
0
15
1
5
6
10
14
15
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
16.268598
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
4
RD
BUTLER
17
142
8.352941176
3.9677005
2
17
4
5
8
11
14
17
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
18.515646
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
4
RD
TANNER
17
153
9
5.1599419
1
17
1
5
11
13
15
17
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
20.143826
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
RD
D WILLIAMS
16
140
8.75
3.4928498
3
17
3
6.5
9
11
12
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
16.655954
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
MA
D WILLIAMS
16
146
9.125
6 302116
1
21
2
4
8
14
20
21
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
11.513919
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
RD
DAVIS
15
104
6.933333333
5.0634075
0
17
2
4
5
8
16
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.552498
F
12.279139
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
MA
DAVIS
15
139
9.266666667
5 573748
3
20
4
4
7
15
19
20
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.789344
F
11.364649
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
RD
DEAS
5
48
9.6
5.9413803
0
15
0
8
12
13
15
15
1.136148015
1.8284998
3.589338
F
10.35042.1
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
MA
DEAS
5
60
12
8.8317609
0
24
0
10
10
16
24
24
1.824890617
2.5360989
5.227424
F
8.971352
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
RD
P WILLIAMS
16
152
9.5
2.4494897
6
13
6
7
10
12
12
13
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
18.296643
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
MA
P WILLIAMS
16
142
8.875
5.8295226
1
18
2
4
8.5
14
18
18
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
11.119612
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
RD
THOMAS
5
63
12.6
3 2863353
9
17
9
11
11
15
17
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
3.589338
F
14.019117
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
MA
THOMAS
5
66
13.2
7.2594766
2
21
2
12
13
18
21
21
1.824890617
2.5360989
5.227424
F
10.029387
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
RD
TOOKES
1
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
1.136148015
1.8284998
6.621647
F
10.86347
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
LA
TOOKES
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1.434674213
2.0406349
7.556579
F
3.7073332
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PERKERSON ELE
5
MA
TOOKES
1
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
1.824890617
2.5360989
9.433187
F
4.406417
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
RD
FULLER
19
65
3.421052632
2.5235731
0
9
0
2
3
5
7
9
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.10631
F
6.8453166
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
LA
FULLER
19
96
5.052631579
5.5424993
0
21
0
2
3
5
18
21
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
7.7215338
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
MA
FULLER
19
80
4.210526316
4 2239916
0
18
0
1
3
5
11
18
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.158216
F
5.23867
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
RD
MANNING
19
110
5.789473684
3.5835883
0
14
1
3
7
8
11
14
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.10631
F
13.7724
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
LA
MANNING
19
113
5.947368421
2.6971937
2
11
3
4
5
8
10
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
£ :-'24:!02?
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
MA
MANNING
19
144
7.578947368
4.0731613
1
15
1
3
8
11
12
15
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.158216
F
12.4046
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
RD
MCCRAE JACKSON
19
55
2.894736842
1.9406396
0
7
0
2
2
4
6
7
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.10631
F
5.3059648
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
LA
MCCRAE JACKSON
19
90
4.736842105
3 347339
0
12
0
2
4
7
10
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
7.0146743
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
MA
MCCRAE JACKSON
19
94
4.947368421
2.9716005
0
9
0
2
5
8
9
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.158216
F
6.8062171
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
RD
MERRITT
14
56
4
2 1838569
1
8
1
2
4
5
7
8
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.275518
F
7.3294953
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
LA
MERRITT
14
73
5.214285714
2 722515
2
10
2
3
4.5
8
10
10
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.164381
F
I
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
MA
MERRITT
14
75
5.357142857
3.2958515
1
11
1
2
5.5
7
11
11
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
6.5907275
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
RD
WILEY
18
55
3.055555556
2 484593
0
7
0
1
2.5
5
7
7
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.134418
F
5.6222593
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
LA
WILEY
18
80
4.444444444
3.8074574
0
16
0
2
3.5
6
8
16
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.980013
F
6.1905394
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
1
MA
WILEY
18
126
7
4.9348699
1
20
2
3
6
9
14
20
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
10.874956
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
2
RD
BICKHAM
19
109
5.736842105
6.2435932
0
20
0
1
3
11
16
20
0.914374058
1.381785
1.865384
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
2
LA
BICKHAM
19
144
7.578947368
7.8337999
0
24
0
1
4
15
20
24
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.511654
F
15.748439
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
2
MA
BICKHAM
19
234
12.31578947
10 072254
0
33
1
4
9
19
32
33
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
22.541763
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
2
LA
CAG LE
18
57
3.166666667
2.2816403
0
9
1
2
3
4
7
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
4.5239327
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
2
RD
HERARD
18
52
2.888888889
2.4944383
0
11
1
1
2
4
5
11
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
6.062562
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
2
LA
HERARD
18
108
6
3.6622076
0
12
0
3
6.5
9
11
12
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
1 1,4(31894
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
2
MA
HERARD
18
102
5.666666667
3.3781304
1
13
1
3
5.5
8
11
13
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
8.1608962
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
2
RD
LAWSHEA
18
87
4.833333333
5.4691649
0
23
0
1
3.5
6
11
23
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
12.032796
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
2
LA
LAWSHEA
18
148
8.222222222
7.4876805
0
23
0
2
5
13
21
23
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
16.90361
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
2
MA
LAWSHEA
18
158
8.777777778
6.0639296
1
22
3
5
7
10
19
22
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
14.608364
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
RD
COLLIER
18
75
4.166666667
3 650141
1
16
1
2
3
5
8
16
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
6.8061912
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
LA
COLLIER
18
121
6.722222222
4.9681995
1
19
1
4
6
9
17
19
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
10.775085
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
MA
COLLIER
19
78
4.105263158
3.0348849
0
12
1
2
3
6
9
12
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.548468
F
3,9375141
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
RD
HARRIS
19
85
4.473684211
6.4409145
0
25
0
0
3
5
18
25
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.457048
F
7.7097153
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
LA
HARRIS
19
93
4.894736842
3.9706526
0
15
0
2
5
7
11
15
1.507762082
2.05317
2.920851
F
7.1905787
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
MA
HARRIS
19
95
5
6 046119
0
23
0
1
3
8
16
23
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.548468
F
5.6004611
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
LA
JAMES
19
147
7.736842105
5.70421
0
16
0
1
7
13
15
16
1.507762082
2.05317
2.920851
F
13.224394
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
RD
WALKER
19
122
6.421052632
5.0367074
0
15
1
2
5
12
15
15
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.457048
F
12.257661
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
LA
WALKER
19
160
8.421052632
6.1220529
0
20
0
2
8
15
17
20
1.507762082
2.05317
2.920851
F
14.67698
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
MA
WALKER
19
129
6.789473684
5.3911342
1
22
2
4
5
8
17
22
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.548468
F
8.8063549
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
RD
WOODS
19
110
5.789473684
4 0080329
1
16
2
2
5
9
12
16
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.457048
F
10.782652
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
LA
WOODS
19
116
6.105263158
5.3634021
0
15
1
2
3
12
15
15
1.507762082
2.05317
2.920851
F
9.7695373
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
3
MA
WOODS
19
125
6.578947368
3.5949933
0
11
1
3
7
10
11
11
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.548468
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
RD
BATTLE
18
185
10.27777778
6.6580827
2
25
3
5
8.5
14
23
25
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
24.036286
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
LA
BATTLE
18
155
8.611111111
9.1338987
1
41
1
3
6.5
10
17
41
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.842798
F
15.036604
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
MA
BATTLE
18
159
8.833333333
5 020546
1
20
2
6
7.5
11
17
20
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.603069
F
12.07702
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
RD
CAMPBELL
16
48
3
1.9663842
1
8
1
1.5
3
3.5
6
8
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
F
4.8954903
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
LA
CAMPBELL
16
97
6.0625
5 5192844
0
18
1
1
4
9.5
15
18
1.405105438
2.0332046
2 930009
F
9.1626679
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
MA
CAMPBELL
16
108
6.75
5.7329457
1
21
2
3
4.5
9
17
21
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.707927
F
7.977519
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
RD
WACKERMAN
17
124
7.294117647
4 727112
0
17
3
3
6
10
14
17
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.185832
F
15.851351
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
LA
WACKERMAN
17
222
13.05882353
6.5332858
2
23
2
9
14
18
20
23
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.884479
F
23.632403
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
MA
WACKERMAN
17
266
15.64705882
10451921
1
44
3
9
14
21
28
44
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.653184
F
23,22867
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
RD
WEAVER
16
97
6.0625
5 458556
2
21
2
2
4
7
14
21
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
[ F
12.371508
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
LA
WEAVER
16
124
7.75
6 223611
1
19
1
2.5
5.5
14
17
19
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
12.48255
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
4
MA
WEAVER
16
220
13.75
9 2700234
4
37
4
8
12
15
33
37
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.707927
F
19.431103
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
RD
BROWN
15
104
6.933333333
3.0347197
2
14
3
5
8
8
9
14
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.552498
F
12.279139
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Win
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
fiag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
LA
BROWN
15
189
12.6
5.0962171
5
28
9
10
11
14
17
28
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.015343
F
21.191013
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
MA
BROWN
15
187
12.46666667
6 266312
4
24
5
9
10
17
24
24
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.789344
F
16.251504
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
RD
MORRIS
15
232
15.46666667
5.6298524
8
29
9
10
15
18
23
29
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.552498
F
30.353769
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
LA
MORRIS
15
130
8.666666667
6 078847
1
25
2
3
8
12
13
25
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.015343
F
13.725819
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
MA
MORRIS
15
64
4.266666667
2.0862361
2
9
2
2
4
5
7
9
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.789344
F
3.7289389
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
RD
PASCHAL
15
261
17.4
7 11939
3
24
8
8
21
23
24
24
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.552498
F
34.448803
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
LA
PASCHAL
15
105
7
5.4902511
0
20
0
3
7
10
14
20
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.015343
F
io.;;sz6C;;
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
MA
PASCHAL
15
132
8.8
4.3948021
0
16
1
6
9
12
13
16
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.789344
F
10.651983
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
RD
PATTERSON
15
141
9.4
7.2091212
2
32
3
5
8
11
15
32
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.552498
F
17.503837
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
LA
PATTERSON
15
103
6.866666667
5.0123657
1
18
2
2
7
9
14
18
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.015343
F
10.309544
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PEYTON FOREST
5
MA
PATTERSON
15
125
8.333333333
5.6146068
0
22
3
4
7
11
15
22
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.789344
F
9.9393166
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
1
LA
A BLACK
17
66
3.882352941
2.6665135
0
7
0
1
5
6
7
7
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
4.8260045
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
1
RD
D NARCISSE
16
38
2.375
3 8449101
0
16
0
1
1
2
5
16
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.198343
F
3.4741387
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
1
LA
Y SMITH
17
89
5.235294118
3.3824808
0
12
1
3
5
7
11
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
7.6305919
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
1
MA
Y SMITH
17
81
4.764705882
2.6346113
0
10
2
3
5
6
9
10
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
6.0704641
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
LA
B DORSEY
18
75
4.166666667
3.8233032
0
14
0
1
3.5
6
10
14
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
6.97266
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
MA
B DORSEY
18
165
9.166666667
4.7927642
2
17
2
4
9
14
15
17
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
15.414297
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
RD
E GREEN
1
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
0.914374058
1.381785
5.059729
F
8.746387
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
LA
E GREEN
1
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1.319203885
1.7325901
6.516974
F
6.1646412
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
MA
E GREEN
1
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1.728771036
2.047211
7.870404
F
5.0171815
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
RD
J HARRIS
18
55
3.055555556
3 019003
0
10
0
1
2
5
8
10
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
6,5742963
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
LA
J HARRIS
18
109
6.055555556
4.9285748
0
19
0
2
6
8
14
19
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
11.598034
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
MA
J HARRIS
18
175
9.722222222
5.6025788
2
21
2
6
8.5
13
20
21
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
16.565631
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
RD
K WORLDS
18
83
4.611111111
4.7791076
0
15
0
1
3.5
9
12
15
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
11.350483
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
LA
K WORLDS
18
141
7.833333333
4.4885475
0
15
1
4
7.5
10
15
15
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
15.951327
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
2
MA
K WORLDS
18
150
8.333333333
5.0874702
0
17
2
5
9
11
16
17
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
13.687297
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
RD
AGONGLEFSKI
17
176
10.35294118
7.5576218
1
24
1
3
11
14
22
24
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
20.280511
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
LA
AGONGLEFSKI
17
80
4.705882353
4.4548387
0
12
0
1
4
9
11
12
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
6.4223555
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
MA
AGONGLEFSKI
17
183
10.76470588
7.4877351
0
22
1
2
13
17
19
22
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
15.066473
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
RD
A RUCKER
18
175
9.722222222
6.6403894
0
24
0
6
9.5
13
21
24
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
19.434759
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
LA
A RUCKER
18
113
6.277777778
4.4032816
0
14
0
4
5.5
10
14
14
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
9.8566911
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
MA
A RUCKER
18
204
11.33333333
7.3883852
0
21
0
5
13
17
21
21
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
16.494814
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
RD
E QUACKENBUSH
18
152
8.444444444
6.6085704
0
19
0
3
9
14
19
19
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
16.530189
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
LA
E QUACKENBUSH
18
111
6.166666667
5.3605311
0
16
0
1
6
10
13
16
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
9.6270927
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
MA
E QUACKENBUSH
18
218
12.11111111
7.3154863
0
26
2
8
12
17
22
26
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
17.851062
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
RD
W HINES
18
143
7.944444444
5.1503538
1
19
2
4
7
11
17
19
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
15.393618
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
LA
W HINES
18
105
5.833333333
4.0329525
0
14
0
3
5
10
12
14
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
8.9382976
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
3
MA
W HINES
18
171
9.5
6.4920766
1
24
2
4
9
14
19
24
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
13,297346
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
RD
C MCNABB
14
85
6.071428571
4 0471127
1
13
1
3
5.5
9
12
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.308377
F
11.592874
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
LA
C MCNABB
14
117
8.357142857
5 812548
0
20
1
5
8.5
12
16
20
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.035296
F
12.793667
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
MA
C MCNABB
14
113
8.071428571
6.0696507
0
21
1
4
7
12
18
21
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.83452
F
9.4847975
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
RD
K HARVEY
14
106
7.571428571
7.2399988
0
22
0
1
7
13
18
22
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.308377
F
15.018102
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
LA
K HARVEY
14
145
10.35714286
8.2425457
0
29
0
3
10
13
21
29
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.035296
F
16.474213
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
MA
K HARVEY
14
181
12.92857143
8.6776839
0
29
0
6
13
18
22
29
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.83452
F
16.918895
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
RD
K YOUNG
13
107
8.230769231
3.3204881
3
14
4
6
8
10
13
14
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.357971
F
15.922633
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
LA
K YOUNG
13
114
8.769230769
6 8938843
1
28
3
4
9
11
13
28
1.405105438
2.0332046
3 096834
F
13.059056
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
MA
K YOUNG
13
172
13.23076923
9.6363361
0
29
1
4
14
19
25
29
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.908512
F
16.749159
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
RD
S CARTER
16
118
7.375
6.0978138
0
20
0
0.5
8.5
12
14
20
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
F
15.575515
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
LA
S CARTER
16
136
8.5
7.8230429
0
26
0
2
8
14
20
26
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.930009
F
13.958054
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
MA
S CARTER
16
184
IIS
7.6681158
0
27
1
5.5
11
16
22
27
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.707927
F
15.749594
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
RD
A GRAVES
21
147
1
8.2945765
0
26
0
1
3
13
17
24
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.333182
F
14.695952
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
LA
A GRAVES
21
79
3.761904762
3.3601304
0
15
0
2
3
5
6
8
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.770583
F
5.2261725
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
MA
A GRAVES
21
212
10.0952381
10 917439
0
31
0
1
2
18
28
30
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.485157
F
14.944012
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
RD
ALAMORTE
7
43
6.142857143
6229729
1
17
1
1
3
12
17
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
3.209472
F
7.2444676
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
LA
A LAMORTE
7
38
5.428571429
6.8521807
0
17
0
0
2
13
17
17
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.748537
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
MA
A LAMORTE
7
47
6.714285714
8.3808171
1
24
1
1
3
11
24
24
1.824890617
2.5360989
4.700557
F
5.1007961
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
RD
DJOHNSON
21
159
7.571428571
7.2634112
0
20
0
1
6
12
20
20
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.333182
F
16.128064
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
LA
DJOHNSON
21
108
5.142857143
6.7696803
0
26
0
0
2
8
14
15
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.770583
F
8.3273244
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
MA
DJOHNSON
21
202
9.619047619
8.4111604
0
30
0
1
10
16
18
20
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.485157
F
14.083565
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
RD
SSANTIAGUE
20
162
8.1
9 4194647
0
29
0.5
1.5
2.5
13
25
29
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.362743
F
17.032156
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
LA
S SANTIAGUE
20
150
7.5
9.2821277
0
31
1
1
3
13
24
30
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.803574
F
13.292413
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SCOTT ELEMENT
5
MA
SSANTIAGUE
20
200
10
9.2962924
0
29
0
1.5
9
17
25
28
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.526158
F
14.41592
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
1
LA
GRESHAM
22
66
3
3 007926
0
10
0
1
2
4
9
9
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.848558
F
3.364707
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
1
RD
LYNUM
22
45
2.045454545
1.8892496
0
6
0
1
2
3
5
6
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.033813
F
3.0366392
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
1
MA
LYNUM
22
68
3.090909091
2.2658771
0
10
1
1
3
4
5
7
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.058545
F
3.0740881
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
1
RD
WALKER
21
61
2.904761905
2.9309514
0
10
0
1
2
4
8
9
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.056245
F
5.6090658
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
1
LA
WALKER
21
153
7.285714286
4 451324
0
17
3
4
7
10
13
15
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.877869
F
13.372769
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
1
MA
WALKER
21
223
10.61904762
4.5329482
0
19
7
8
11
13
14
17
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.089384
F
1 9.840484
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
2
RD
GRAHAM
21
119
5.666666667
3.4253954
1
12
2
3
5
8
10
11
0.914374058
1.381785
1.818965
F
15.760586
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
2
LA
GRAHAM
21
162
7.714285714
4 291187
2
16
4
5
6
12
14
16
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.45345
F
16.91453
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
2
MA
GRAHAM
21
192
9.142857143
5.3036376
1
19
3
5
9
11
17
18
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
16.596048
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
2
RD
NOLAN
22
68
3.090909091
2.3075258
0
7
0
1
3
5
6
7
0.914374058
1.381785
1.798167
F
7.3881643
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
2
LA
NOLAN
22
71
3.227272727
2.3488968
0
8
1
1
3
5
6
8
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.427372
F
5.1654666
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
2
MA
NOLAN
22
118
5.363636364
3.2447093
0
12
1
3
5.5
8
9
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.038172
F
8.32793
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
2
MA
ST ARRE
21
102
4.857142857
2.8334734
1
11
2
3
4
6
10
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.068985
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
2
LA
UMUNAKWE
20
73
3.65
3.0482955
0
12
1
1.5
2.5
5.5
7.5
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.481461
F
8.0162166
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
2
MA
UMUNAKWE
20
113
5.65
3.6313692
0
13
0.5
3.5
5.5
8
11
13
1.728771036
2.047211
3.102082
F
8.5659316
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
3
LA
AUSMORE
17
54
3.176470588
2.3514701
1
8
1
1
2
4
8
8
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
3.3510432
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
3
MA
AUSMORE
17
69
4.058823529
2.0757706
1
9
1
3
4
5
7
9
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
3.7025724
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
3
RD
COLEMAN
18
61
3.388888889
3.4833873
0
11
0
1
2
6
10
11
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
5.0381917
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
3
RD
TAYLOR
16
132
8.25
8.1281404
0
21
0
2
5
18
21
21
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
15.16809
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
3
LA
TAYLOR
16
74
4.625
3.9979161
0
13
1
1.5
3
7
12
13
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
3
MA
TAYLOR
16
72
4.5
3.0550505
0
11
0
3
4
6
9
11
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
4.3173257
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
3
RD
WINSTON
17
174
10.23529412
4.9057289
2
19
3
7
10
14
16
19
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
20.020617
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
3
LA
WINSTON
17
52
3.058823529
1.6382379
0
7
1
2
3
4
5
7
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
3.1147884
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
4
RD
BLACKMON
19
50
2.631578947
2.2412924
0
9
0
1
2
3
6
9
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.122339
F
4.3546705
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
4
LA
BLACKMON
19
65
3.421052632
2.5235731
0
10
1
2
3
4
8
10
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.804453
F
4.3219016
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
4
RD
GRANT
21
110
5.238095238
4.7106768
0
17
0
1
6
8
10
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.067293
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
4
LA
GRANT
21
204
9.714285714
8.6956475
0
29
0
3
8
13
21
29
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.73615
F
18.7278
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
4
MA
GRANT
21
307
14.61904762
8.6398854
2
27
4
6
17
20
27
27
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.474839
F
23.890183
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
4
RD
HICKS
19
246
12.94736842
6.7369106
1
21
2
5
14
19
20
21
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.122339
F
31.796528
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SLATER ELEMEN
5
RD
JONES
19
50
2.631578947
2.4991227
0
7
0
1
2
5
7
7
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
F
3.5649074
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SMITH ELEMENT
3
LA
ELLIS
18
54
3
3 6782349
0
14
0
1
1.5
4
9
14
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
3.0835387
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
1
RD
BEAU FORT
12
47
3.916666667
4.6015478
0
17
0
1.5
2.5
4.5
7
17
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.37126
F
6.5920966
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
1
LA
BEAU FORT
12
104
8.666666667
5 1 04959
2
18
3
4
8
14
14
18
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.289481
F
12.565427
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
1
MA
BEAU FORT
12
77
6.416666667
3.0289012
2
14
4
5
5.5
7.5
9
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.522474
F
7.8931378
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
1
RD
COHEN
11
43
3.909090909
2.6250541
0
8
1
1
4
6
7
8
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.428651
F
6.2945928
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
1
LA
COHEN
11
56
5.090909091
3.7001228
0
12
0
3
4
7
9
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.36447
F
5.940399
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
1
MA
COHEN
11
54
4.909090909
2.8793939
0
11
2
4
4
7
7
11
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.601376
F
5.116795
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
1
MA
MCKEITHEN P
17
71
4.176470588
3 2061522
0
11
0
2
3
6
9
11
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
4.8867552
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
1
MA
NICKOLICH
13
47
3.615384615
2.0631069
1
8
1
2
4
5
5
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.452861
F
3.285995
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
1
LA
OLIVER
11
47
4.272727273
2.8316394
1
10
2
2
4
7
7
10
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.36447
F
4.5469057
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
2
RD
DALIDE K
15
42
2.8
1.7808505
1
7
1
1
3
3
6
7
0.914374058
1.381785
1.9847
F
5.2851913
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
2
LA
DALIDE K
15
56
3.733333333
2.9872746
0
10
1
2
3
6
10
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
5.3964774
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
2
MA
DALIDE K
15
60
4
2.4784788
0
11
2
3
3
5
6
11
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
4.2967882
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
2
RD
SWAIN P
18
68
3.777777778
2.1297764
0
8
1
2
4
5
7
8
0.914374058
1.381785
1.891444
F
8.7918117
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
2
LA
SWAIN P
18
99
5.5
5 3275091
1
22
1
2
4.5
6
15
22
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.54433
F
10.23763
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
2
MA
SWAIN P
18
84
4.666666667
2.4970571
1
9
1
3
4
7
9
9
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
6.0884959
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
2
RD
SYLVIA WALLER
16
47
2.9375
2.2647664
0
7
0
0.5
3.5
5
5
7
0.914374058
1.381785
1.950713
F
5.856558
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
2
LA
SYLVIA WALLER
16
76
4.75
2.1447611
0
8
2
3.5
5
6
8
8
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.618646
F
7.9206182
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
2
MA
SYLVIA WALLER
16
102
6.375
4.1613299
2
19
3
3.5
5.5
7.5
11
19
1.728771036
2.047211
3.264179
F
9.0781635
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
3
RD
HUBBARD
19
101
5.315789474
2.7295224
0
10
2
4
5
7
10
10
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.457048
F
9.6763946
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
3
LA
HUBBARD
19
89
4.684210526
2.4506832
1
9
2
2
5
6
9
9
1.507762082
2.05317
2.920851
F
6.7436294
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
3
MA
HUBBARD
19
86
4.526315789
2 7359423
0
11
1
2
4
6
9
11
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.548468
F
4.7518421
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
4
RD
BROWN
14
33
2.357142857
1.7368027
0
6
0
1
2
4
4
6
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.308377
F
3.1113569
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
4
RD
SAVAG E
4
38
9.5
6.7577116
0
16
0
5.5
11
14
16
16
0.994595544
1.6385729
3.452455
F
10 381478
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
4
MA
SAVAGE
4
60
15
10 033278
0
21
0
9.5
20
21
21
21
1.874440105
2.4446497
5.541415
F
10.738193
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
5
RD
BIDULESCU
5
58
11.6
5.2249402
3
17
3
12
12
14
17
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
3.589338
F
12.79622
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
5
LA
BIDULESCU
5
74
14.8
10 473777
3
29
3
6
18
18
29
29
1.434674213
2.0406349
4.172473
F
14.645333
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
5
MA
BIDULESCU
5
27
5.4
9.8893883
0
23
0
0
2
2
23
23
1.824890617
2.5360989
5.227424
F
3.1521592
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
5
RD
DAY
12
41
3.416666667
3 5791907
0
12
0
1
2
6
6
12
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.719675
F
4.3204536
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
5
MA
DAY
12
71
5.916666667
4.1000739
1
14
2
3
5
7.5
13
14
1.824890617
2.5360989
4.021217
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
5
RD
FORRER
15
80
5.333333333
3.1773004
0
10
1
3
5
8
10
10
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.552498
F
8.8901455
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
5
LA
FORRER
15
71
4.733333333
2.6583203
1
12
1
3
4
6
7
12
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.015343
F
6.2606259
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
5
MA
FORRER
15
139
9.266666667
4.3665394
1
17
1
8
9
12
14
17
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.789344
F
11.364649
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
5
LA
THOMASVILLE
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1.434674213
2.0406349
7.556579
F
3.7073392
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THOMASVILLE H
5
MA
THOMASVILLE
1
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1.824890617
2.5360989
9.433187
F
5.5893361
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOOMER ELEMEN
1
LA
BROWN
15
53
3.533333333
2.6149752
0
9
1
2
3
6
7
9
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.111438
F
3.8390905
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOOMER ELEMEN
2
RD
CRAWFORD
10
30
3
2.2110832
0
7
0
1
3
4
6
7
0.914374058
1.381785
2.22525
F
4.7730498
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOOMER ELEMEN
2
LA
CRAWFORD
10
48
4.8
2.6583203
1
10
2
3
4
7
8.5
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.962883
F
6.3530572
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOOMER ELEMEN
2
MA
CRAWFORD
10
58
5.8
3.2591751
0
12
1
5
6
7
10
12
1.728771036
2.047211
3.670926
F
6.2887297
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOOMER ELEMEN
2
RD
HARDAWAY
10
44
4.4
3.4058773
1
11
1
2
3.5
6
10
11
0.914374058
1.381785
2.22525
F
7.9770134
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOOMER ELEMEN
2
LA
HARDAWAY
10
45
4.5
2 321398
1
8
1.5
3
4
6
8
8
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.962883
F
5.8055051
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOOMER ELEMEN
2
MA
HARDAWAY
10
54
5.4
3.0983867
0
10
0.5
3
6.5
7
8.5
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.670926
F
5.6708593
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOOMER ELEMEN
5
RD
STIFFEND
16
125
7.8125
3.4874776
2
15
3
5.5
7.5
10
12
15
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
14.605092
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOOMER ELEMEN
5
MA
STIFFEND
16
70
4.375
3.8965797
0
12
0
1.5
3
7.5
12
12
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
4.0220976
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
1
RD
DYKES K
17
87
5.117647059
3 351909
0
11
1
3
4
7
11
11
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.16497
F
11.168741
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
1
LA
DYKES K
17
88
5.176470588
3.3954988
1
12
2
2
4
7
11
12
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
7.5660446
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
1
MA
DYKES K
17
72
4.235294118
2.3592746
0
9
1
2
5
5
7
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
5.0051261
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
2
RD
FOSTER P
16
46
2.875
2.4186773
0
8
0
1
2.5
3.5
8
8
0.914374058
1.381785
1.950713
F
5.6756326
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
2
LA
FOSTER P
16
64
4
2.6331224
1
11
1
2
4
5
7
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.618646
F
6.1891065
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
2
MA
FOSTER P
16
74
4.625
2.8254793
0
11
1
2.5
4.5
6
9
11
1.728771036
2.047211
3.264179
F
5.6588774
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
2
MA
NERO J
16
59
3.6875
2.9825884
0
10
0
1
3.5
5.5
8
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.264179
F
3.82/117
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
2
RD
WADDEL
13
35
2.692307692
2.1750332
0
6
0
1
3
4
6
6
0.914374058
1.381785
2.064089
F
4.6392392
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
2
LA
WADDEL
13
72
5.538461538
3.7774635
0
12
1
3
5
7
11
12
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.760806
F
8.7803515
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
2
MA
WADDEL
13
85
6.538461538
5.5769673
0
15
1
2
5
12
15
15
1.728771036
2.047211
3.432154
F
8.4708347
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
RD
CORBETT L
15
56
3.733333333
2 8652267
1
12
1
2
3
5
6
12
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
5.3139704
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
LA
CORBETT L
15
77
5.133333333
3.3988794
0
10
0
3
7
8
9
10
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
6.8390717
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
MA
CORBETT L
15
139
9.266666667
7.6947725
0
22
0
1
11
16
17
22
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
11.767885
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
RD
FARMER A
15
79
5.266666667
5.3514573
0
15
0
1
3
11
13
15
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
8.4957682
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
LA
FARMER A
15
55
3.666666667
2.7429563
0
9
0
2
3
5
8
9
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
4.072435
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
MA
FARMER A
15
99
6.6
7.0488094
0
26
0
1
5
9
16
26
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
7.5230446
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
RD
NASHT
16
71
4.4375
3.0977142
0
10
0
2
4.5
6
9
10
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
6.9973721
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
LA
NASHT
16
62
3.875
3 5
0
15
0
2
3.5
5
6
15
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
4.6118692
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
MA
NASHT
16
124
7.75
5.2345009
0
19
2
3
7
12
14
19
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
9.6603897
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
RD
TROFORT D
12
57
4.75
4.2879323
0
14
0
1.5
4
6.5
11
14
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.788857
F
6.6399061
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
3
MA
TROFORT D
12
57
4.75
5.6266412
0
16
0
0.5
3
7
15
16
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.981013
F
4.0348544
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
MA
GILBERT C
13
75
5.769230769
3.5859412
2
14
2
3
5
7
10
14
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.908512
F
5.744327
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
RD
GREEN B
13
35
2.692307692
2.8689317
0
11
0
1
2
3
4
11
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.357971
F
3.7356825
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
MA
GREEN B
13
117
9
7.1180522
0
22
0
3
9
12
18
22
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.908512
F
10.509306
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
RD
WEAKSG
13
86
6.615384615
3 9483849
2
16
3
4
5
8
11
16
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.357971
F
12.368106
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
LA
WEAKS G
13
71
5.461538462
4.5573272
1
18
2
3
4
7
10
18
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.096834
F
7.1934116
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
MA
WEAKS G
13
59
4.538461538
3.6197464
0
10
0
2
5
8
9
10
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.908512
F
3.929097
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
RD
WOOTEN D
15
88
5.866666667
3.3777987
0
13
2
4
5
8
11
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.263829
F
11.515783
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
LA
WOOTEN D
15
140
9.333333333
4.2201332
4
20
4
7
9
11
15
20
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.980019
F
15.102216
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
MA
WOOTEN D
15
181
12.06666667
7.0959412
1
23
2
6
12
20
22
23
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.768058
F
18.147231
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
RD
BURSON D
18
119
6.611111111
3.8215933
0
15
1
5
7
9
12
15
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.429093
F
12.703475
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
LA
BURSON D
18
115
6.388888889
4 354023
0
16
0
4
6
9
13
16
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.877621
F
10.300202
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
MA
BURSON D
18
182
10.11111111
7.4902987
0
30
0
6
8
14
19
30
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.618183
F
13.862021
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
RD
MORRISON
17
108
6.352941176
4.2122022
0
13
0
3
8
9
12
13
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.466577
F
11.763408
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
LA
MORRISON
17
124
7.294117647
6.0803444
0
19
0
2
7
11
16
19
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.919454
F
11.839013
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
MA
MORRISON
17
134
7.882352941
4.8203002
0
16
0
5
8
11
16
16
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.670174
F
9.3480215
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
RD
STEWARD
15
89
5.933333333
4.7579507
0
15
0
1
5
10
13
15
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.552498
F
10.161018
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
LA
STEWARD
15
67
4.466666667
4.0331956
0
12
0
1
3
8
11
12
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.015343
F
5.754511 !
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
MA
STEWARD
15
184
12.26666667
8 0575312
0
27
0
6
13
19
20
27
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.789344
F
15.946075
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
RD
THOMAS C
18
119
6.611111111
4.1887649
0
15
0
4
7
10
13
15
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.429093
F
12.703475
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
LA
THOMAS C
18
91
5.055555556
5 023149
0
20
0
1
5
7
10
20
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.877621
F
7.5280975
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TOWNS ELEMENT
5
MA
THOMAS C
18
151
8.388888889
6.2978884
1
21
1
2
8
12
19
21
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.618183
F
10.980915
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
1
MA
BROWN TORRI
IS
56
3.5
2.8982753
0
10
0
1.5
3
4
9
10
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
3.4202277
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
1
LA
NEVETT WANDA
17
92
5.411764706
3.4106235
1
13
2
3
5
6
13
13
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
8.0642337
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
1
MA
NEVETT WANDA
17
147
8.647058824
5 453682
2
18
2
5
7
12
18
18
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
13.882943
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
2
LA
SANDERS CAROLYN
16
44
2.75
1.4832397
1
5
1
1.5
2.5
4
5
5
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.618646
F
3.3032537
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
5
MA
LUCAS KIMBERLY
17
165
9.705882353
6.2326229
0
24
1
6
10
13
18
24
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.670174
F
12.812655
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
1
RD
BROOKS
18
133
7.388888889
4.38096
2
18
2
5
6.5
10
14
18
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.134418
F
17.958222
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
1
LA
BROOKS
18
151
8.388888889
4.1322105
0
14
2
5
8.5
12
13
14
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.980013
F
14.784251
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
1
MA
BROOKS
18
173
9.611111111
4.5521668
2
17
3
7
10
13
15
17
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
16.28164
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
1
RD
HOLLAND
17
74
4.352941176
3 408467
0
12
1
2
4
7
9
12
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.16497
F
9.0531413
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
1
LA
HOLLAND
17
100
5.882352941
3.2573446
1
13
1
4
5
8
10
13
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
9.0606119
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
1
MA
HOLLAND
17
86
5.058823529
2.4614678
1
9
2
4
5
7
9
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
6.6623185
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
1
RD
SOYINKA
17
85
5
2.3979158
2
9
2
3
5
6
9
9
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.16497
F
10.843265
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
1
LA
SOYINKA
17
149
8.764705882
2.7048432
3
14
6
7
9
10
12
14
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.019933
F
15.163429
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
1
MA
SOYINKA
17
138
8.117647059
3.6551736
2
14
2
5
8
11
13
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.238862
F
12.817605
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
2
RD
ZACHERY
24
43
1.791666667
1.6145848
0
6
0
0.5
1.5
3
4
4
0.914374058
1.381785
1.760541
F
3.1103527
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
2
MA
ZACHERY
24
119
4.958333333
4.0052049
0
16
1
1.5
5
7
10
12
1.728771036
2.047211
2.982427
F
7.7283483
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
RD
BURNEY WATSON
21
237
11.28571429
6.1979259
0
26
6
8
10
14
19
20
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.394349
F
24.830741
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
LA
BURNEY WATSON
21
108
5.142857143
6.1748337
0
27
1
1
3
7
11
12
1.507762082
2.05317
2.851877
F
8.1133555
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
MA
BURNEY WATSON
21
170
8.095238095
8.2030772
0
27
1
1
4
14
18
21
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.466733
F
11.717609
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
RD
LOVETT
21
253
12.04761905
6.9676121
0
30
3
7
13
15
17
22
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.394349
F
26.701426
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
LA
LOVETT
21
118
5.619047619
8.7491496
0
30
0
1
2
6
13
30
1.507762082
2.05317
2.851877
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
MA
LOVETT
21
151
7.19047619
8.4830363
0
30
0
1
4
9
16
26
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.466733
F
10.013525
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
RD
SANDERS
20
211
10.55
8 2364722
0
25
0.5
3.5
9.5
17
23
25
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.424523
F
22.469476
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
LA
SANDERS
20
160
8
8.1369851
0
24
0.5
2
3
15
22
24
1.507762082
2.05317
2.88507
F
14.141143
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
MA
SANDERS
20
277
13.85
9.8423093
1
33
1
5
15
20
29
32
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.506068
F
22.01 '2?.l
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
RD
SMITH
22
310
14.09090909
6.8654351
4
34
7
10
13
16
24
24
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.366256
F
32.464678
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
LA
SMITH
22
157
7.136363636
8 520538
1
36
2
2
4
6
19
21
1.507762082
2.05317
2.820974
F
12.8584
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
3
MA
SMITH
22
131
5.954545455
5.6440215
1
27
3
3
4
6
9
16
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.430112
F
7.8665625
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
4
RD
GREEN D
20
134
6.7
4.8351781
0
21
1
3.5
6
9
12
17
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.093784
F
15.67108?
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
4
LA
GREEN D
20
59
2.95
2 7810449
0
8
0
0.5
2
5.5
7
7.5
1.405105438
2.0332046
2 769021
F
3.3980735
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
4
RD
JACKSON
20
146
7.3
4.7804426
0
19
2.5
3.5
7
10
14
17
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.093784
F
17.209259
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
4
LA
JACKSON
20
121
6.05
5.0102526
0
21
1.5
3
4
7
13
18
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.769021
F
10.21668
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
4
MA
JACKSON
20
116
5.8
3.2863353
1
12
2
3
6
8
11
12
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.514361
F
7.1812486
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
4
RD
WARE
20
179
8.95
5.5769733
1
23
2.5
6
7
12
17
20
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.093784
F
21.712583
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
4
LA
WARE
20
237
11.85
7.8289275
4
32
4
6
11
15
23
31
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.769021
F
22.974072
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
4
MA
WARE
20
378
18.9
9.7812926
4
41
8.5
11
18
25
34
39
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.514361
F
31.145819
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
5
RD
ARONSON
19
320
16.84210526
7 3125703
1
29
5
13
17
22
27
29
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
F
37.440902
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
5
LA
ARONSON
19
301
15.84210526
8.4146906
2
34
4
8
17
21
26
34
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.839135
F
30.774998
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
5
MA
ARONSON
19
456
24
9 545214
5
40
11
17
26
30
38
40
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.570354
F
38.113285
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
5
RD
BRADFORD
19
308
16.21052632
7.0283469
3
26
4
12
16
22
26
26
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
F
35.935302
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
5
LA
BRADFORD
19
260
13.68421053
7.7031929
2
34
5
7
14
19
22
34
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.839135
F
26.165626
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
5
MA
BRADFORD
19
450
23.68421053
11 537632
0
37
2
13
27
32
37
37
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.570354
F
37.570524
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
5
RD
LABRIE
19
298
15.68421053
6.7003535
1
29
6
11
15
21
23
29
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
F
34.680636
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
5
LA
LABRIE
19
224
11.78947368
8 155291
0
27
2
5
10
19
25
27
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.839135
F
22.118373
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
USHER ELEMENT
5
MA
LABRIE
19
261
13.73684211
8 678467
0
27
2
4
15
21
25
27
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.570354
F
20.473567
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
1
RD
ANDERSON DERRIC
20
49
2.45
2.0124612
0
9
0.5
1
2.5
3
4
6.5
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.080339
F
4.1092613
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
1
MA
ANDERSON DERRIC
21
87
4.142857143
2.8859264
0
9
1
1
4
6
8
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.089384
F
5.3561466
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
1
RD
LICHTENSTEIN A
10
45
4.5
2.1730675
2
8
2
3
4
7
7.5
8
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.494449
F
7.2554792
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
W C M CT 1 A M LI
VENbl IAN H
LL
1
MA
LICHTENSTEIN A
10
69
6.9
4.5080175
1
13
2
3
5.5
11
13
13
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.691835
F
7 %:7>yrr'
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
1
MA
MCCULLOUGH LIND
21
72
3.428571429
2.5606919
0
9
1
1
3
5
6
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.089384
F
3.7586094
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
1
RD
WEEMSJ
15
38
2.533333333
1 5055453
1
5
1
1
2
4
5
5
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.235
F
3.7752851
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
1
MA
WEEMSJ
15
79
5.266666667
3.7122705
0
13
1
3
5
9
11
13
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.335141
F
6.6510302
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
2
RD
CORNELL
15
68
4.533333333
3.8705235
0
13
0
2
4
7
11
13
0.914374058
1.381785
1.9847
F
10.143524
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
W C M CT 1 A M LI
VENbl IAN H
LL
2
LA
CORNELL
15
90
6
4.7358813
0
17
0
3
5
10
12
17
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
10.463321
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
2
MA
CORNELL
15
153
10.2
5.7346067
0
17
1
6
11
16
16
17
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
16.026159
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WCMCTIAM LI
VENbl IAN H
LL
2
RD
JORDAN DETAMORE
14
91
6.5
5.4877486
0
18
1
2
6
8
15
18
0.914374058
1.381785
2.022267
F
15.125001
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
2
LA
JORDAN DETAMORE
14
114
8.142857143
5.9724643
0
17
1
2
6.5
13
17
17
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.708366
F
14.736188
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
2
MA
JORDAN DETAMORE
14
95
6.785714286
5 308608
0
14
0
2
5.5
13
13
14
1.728771036
2.047211
3.370191
F
9.2425008
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
2
RD
MILLER
16
46
2.875
2.2472205
0
9
0
1.5
2.5
4
5
9
0.914374058
1.381785
1.950713
F
5.6758326
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
2
LA
MILLER
16
55
3.4375
3.0761177
0
10
0
1
2.5
5
9
10
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.618646
F
4.8904727
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WCMCTIAM LI
VENbl IAN H
LL
2
MA
MILLER
16
83
5.1875
3.4490337
2
14
2
3
4.5
5.5
12
14
1.728771036
2.047211
3.264179
F
6.7579336
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
2
RD
OLINGA AMBE
15
63
4.2
3.9496835
0
16
1
1
4
5
8
16
0.914374058
1.381785
1.9847
F
9.2092294
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WCMCTIAM LI
VENbl IAN H
LL
2
LA
OLINGA AMBE
15
88
5.866666667
5.6425256
0
21
0
1
5
8
13
21
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
10.165271
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
2
MA
OLINGA AMBE
15
100
6.666666667
5.2463139
0
18
1
3
6
9
16
18
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
9.3416783
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
3
RD
FOWLKS VALERIA
18
88
4.888888889
4.2962212
0
13
0
0
4.5
8
12
13
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
8.4479051
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
3
LA
FOWLKS VALERIA
18
72
4
4.2287531
0
17
0
1
3
5
9
17
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
5.1499242
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
3
MA
FOWLKS VALERIA
18
86
4.777777778
5.2193707
0
17
0
1
3.5
8
16
17
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
5.0635894
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WCMCTIAM LI
VENbl IAN H
LL
3
RD
HOWARD
18
83
4.611111111
4.2306847
1
16
1
2
3
7
12
16
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
7.8164767
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
3
LA
HOWARD
18
104
5.777777778
3.6064575
0
14
2
3
5.5
8
11
14
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
8.8234984
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WCMCTIAM LI
VENbl IAN H
LL
3
MA
HOWARD
18
139
7.722222222
4.0264647
0
17
1
6
7
9
14
17
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
10.197953
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
3
RD
PARKS
17
171
10.05882353
5.5166859
0
20
5
6
8
14
19
20
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.53051
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
3
LA
PARKS
17
204
12
7.2972598
0
28
3
6
12
15
20
28
1.507762082
2.05317
3.001663
F
21.070152
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
3
MA
PARKS
17
143
8.411764706
5.4778968
2
21
2
5
7
11
20
21
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.644233
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
3
RD
SMITH
18
177
9.833333333
8.3683578
0
25
0
3
8.5
14
24
25
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.492248
F
19.687331
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WCMCTIAM LI
VENbl IAN H
LL
3
LA
SMITH
18
238
13.22222222
10 155008
0
36
0
6
13
20
27
36
1.507762082
2.05317
2.959573
F
24.20659
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
3
MA
SMITH
18
92
5.111111111
3.6443169
0
12
0
2
5.5
8
11
12
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.594355
F
5.6448381
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
\/CM CXI AMU
VblM b 1 IAIM n
LL
4
RD
BATISTE
17
142
8.352941176
4 0764748
1
17
2
6
9
11
12
17
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.186832
F
18.515646
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
LA
BATISTE
17
191
11.23529412
5.3095364
2
22
4
8
11
13
19
22
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.884479
F
19.934495
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
MA
BATISTE
17
192
11.29411765
6.1111037
1
19
3
4
13
16
18
19
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.653184
F
15.887072
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
RD
H SCOTT
19
188
9.894736842
7.1250321
0
22
0
4
9
16
19
22
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.122339
F
23.675978
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
LA
H SCOTT
19
209
11
7.7172246
0
30
0
5
12
14
25
30
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.804453
F
20.570078
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
MA
H SCOTT
20
279
13.95
8.6418504
0
31
2.5
6.5
15
19
26
30
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.514361
F
22.090504
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
RD
HALL MARIE
20
109
5.45
4.4066338
0
15
0
1.5
5
9
11
13
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.093784
F
12.160078
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
LA
HALL MARIE
20
166
8.3
4 9852414
0
17
1
4
9
13
15
16
1.405105438
2.0332046
2 769021
F
15.165668
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
MA
HALL MARIE
20
167
8.35
7.7749598
0
27
0.5
2
7
11
21
26
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.514361
F
11.846108
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
RD
HANKERSON
14
111
7.928571429
7.1086544
0
23
0
2
8
13
17
23
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.308377
F
15.833633
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
LA
HANKERSON
14
138
9.857142857
6.0999009
0
18
3
4
11
15
17
18
1.405105438
2.0332046
3.035296
F
15.554081
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
4
MA
HANKERSON
14
231
16.5
8.0455434
5
26
5
8
17
25
26
26
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.83452
F
22.385143
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
5
RD
BRIDGET SMITH
20
223
11.15
6.3930472
0
23
2
7
11
16
21
22
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.362743
F
24.491831
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
5
LA
BRIDGET SMITH
20
132
6.6
5.1237322
0
20
0.5
2.5
6.5
9
13
17
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.803574
F
11.320025
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
5
MA
BRIDGET SMITH
20
188
9.4
4 7506232
1
16
1.5
6.5
9.5
14
15
16
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.526158
F
13.357885
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H
LL
5
RD
MELBA SMITH
19
122
6.421052632
4.2858396
0
14
1
3
7
10
13
14
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
F
]' ' 16506
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H LL
5
LA
MELBA SMITH
19
197
10.36842105
6.9937315
1
26
2
5
10
14
21
26
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.839135
F
19.082933
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H LL
5
MA
MELBA SMITH
19
178
9.368421053
5.2621344
0
22
1
7
9
12
16
22
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.570354
F
12.96538
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H LL
5
RD
N JONES
20
161
8.05
5.5958161
0
18
1
2
8.5
13
16
17
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.362743
F
16.909866
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H LL
5
LA
N JONES
20
154
7.7
8 682105
0
30
0.5
1
5.5
12
22
28
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.803574
F
13.730721
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
VENETIAN H LL
5
MA
N JONES
20
245
12.25
7.5872122
0
25
1.5
5.5
12
17
23
24
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.526158
F
18.383552
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
1
MA
ANDERSON
16
60
3.75
2 5166115
0
9
1
1.5
4
5.5
7
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
3.9082834
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
1
MA
DALLAS
16
74
4.625
2.7049338
0
9
0
2.5
5
7
8
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
5.6164782
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
1
RD
WHITAKERGRAHAM
14
47
3.357142857
2.7345972
1
11
1
2
2
5
6
11
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.275518
F
5.7155338
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
1
LA
WHITAKERGRAHAM
14
57
4.071428571
2.5858873
0
9
1
2
4
6
7
9
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.164381
F
4.7428218
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
1
MA
WHITAKERGRAHAM
14
89
6.357142857
4.1251041
0
14
1
4
6
9
12
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.390846
F
8.4168646
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
2
LA
PAGE
16
56
3.5
3.2249031
0
11
0
1
2.5
6
8
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.618646
F
5.0347654
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
2
MA
PAGE
16
55
3.4375
2.2201727
0
7
1
1.5
3.5
5
7
7
1.728771036
2.047211
3.264179
F
3.3386475
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
2
LA
WILDER
15
50
3.333333333
2 7429563
0
9
0
1
3
6
7
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.661262
F
4.5023286
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
RD
CARTER
14
70
5
3.2581259
1
12
1
2
5
7
9
12
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
7.673099
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
LA
CARTER
14
62
4.428571429
3.1796053
0
11
1
3
4
5
10
11
1.507762082
2.05317
3.15396
F
5.3228265
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
MA
CARTER
14
143
10.21428571
6.3992616
1
24
5
5
8.5
13
20
24
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.82471
F
12.826143
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
RD
LAWRENCE
16
87
5.4375
2.9881711
2
12
2
3
4.5
8
9
12
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
9.1405112
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
LA
LAWRENCE
16
63
3.9375
2.1746647
1
9
2
2
3.5
5.5
7
9
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
4.7338322
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
MA
LAWRENCE
16
170
10.625
6.7218549
1
27
4
6
9
13
21
27
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
14.386946
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
RD
LEWIS GAMBLE
16
122
7.625
5.1234754
0
18
0
4.5
7
11
14
18
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
13.828628
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
LA
LEWIS GAMBLE
16
98
6.125
4.9514308
1
17
1
2.5
4
8.5
15
17
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
8.9953348
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
MA
LEWIS GAMBLE
16
210
13.125
6.11 96405
2
25
6
9
13
17
23
25
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
18.496995
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
RD
TURNER
3
41
13.66666667
10 115994
2
20
2
2
19
20
20
20
1.172489269
1.8664211
4.405225
F
11.594677
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
3
MA
TURNER
3
32
10.66666667
18 475209
0
32
0
0
0
32
32
32
1.873920927
2.4330609
6.088106
F
6.2593922
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
4
RD
BULLA RD
18
57
3.166666667
3.7612576
0
12
0
1
2
3
12
12
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
5.6239898
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
4
RD
JASPER
18
62
3.444444444
4.3007827
0
12
0
0
1
7
12
12
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
6.3432201
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
4
MA
JASPER
18
116
6.444444444
6.9892541
0
21
0
1
3
12
18
21
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.603069
F
7. 9311511
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
5
RD
BLOXSON
17
64
3.764705882
2.8837782
0
9
1
1
3
5
9
9
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.466577
F
5.92 71661
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
5
LA
BLOXSON
17
61
3.588235294
2.6939475
0
10
1
2
3
4
9
10
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.919454
F
4.3512731
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
5
MA
BLOXSON
17
133
7.823529412
4.4333296
1
19
3
5
7
11
13
19
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.670174
F
9.7523882
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
5
RD
FERGUSON
19
76
4
3 958114
0
14
1
1
3
5
12
14
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.394608
F
6.8270402
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
5
LA
FERGUSON
19
89
4.684210526
5.3338816
0
19
0
1
3
4
15
19
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.839135
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WEST MANOR EL
5
MA
FERGUSON
19
172
9.052631579
6.8513882
0
24
2
2
8
12
21
24
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.570354
F
12.42262
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
1
LA
ANDREWS
20
59
2.95
2.2589005
0
8
0
2
2.5
4.5
6
7.5
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.909351
F
3.0933526
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
1
MA
ANDREWS
20
157
7.85
3.4530688
2
16
3.5
5.5
8
11
12
14
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.122509
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
1
LA
DICKENS BRENAI
19
67
3.526315789
2 632456
0
11
0
1
4
5
6
11
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
4.3050459
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
1
MA
DICKENS BRENAI
19
92
4.842105263
2.7134062
0
9
1
3
5
7
9
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.158216
F
6.5822818
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
2
MA
COLETTE WRIGHT
19
81
4.263157895
3.2802795
1
12
1
2
3
5
11
12
1.728771036
2.047211
3.137758
F
5.3961885
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
2
MA
GILBERT JACKSON
18
58
3.222222222
3 1164753
0
12
0
1
2.5
4
9
12
1.728771036
2.047211
3.176368
F
3.0950287
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
3
RD
HOWARD
20
71
3.55
3.1867324
0
13
0.5
1
3
5
7
10
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.424523
F
5.6967591
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
3
MA
HOWARD
20
116
5.8
4.4438011
0
14
1
2
5
9.5
13
14
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.506068
F
7.2164077
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
3
RD
MOMON
19
175
9.210526316
7.0520206
1
25
2
3
9
13
20
25
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.457048
F
18.772286
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
3
MA
MOMON
19
144
7.578947368
4 562112
0
15
1
3
9
10
15
15
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.548468
F
10.22072
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
3
RD
YOUNGINER
20
57
2.85
2.6212693
0
10
0
1
2.5
4
6.5
8.5
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.424523
F
4.0194874
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
3
MA
YOUNGINER
20
171
8.55
5.7351639
0
18
0.5
3.5
8.5
14
16
17
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.506068
F
12.2711
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
4
RD
BLOU NT
16
79
4.9375
2 8394542
1
11
2
3
4
6.5
10
11
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.223525
F
9.6252157
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
4
MA
BLOU NT
16
74
4.625
2.5527763
1
11
1
3
4.5
5.5
8
11
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.707927
F
4.5005382
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
4
RD
NEGUSSE
15
41
2.733333333
2.6313133
0
9
0
0
2
4
6
9
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.263829
F
4.1097362
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
4
MA
NEGUSSE
15
58
3.866666667
3.0906926
0
11
1
2
3
7
8
11
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.768058
F
3.1562232
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
RD
BARRETT
2
12
6
2.8284271
4
8
4
4
6
8
8
8
1.136148015
1.8284998
5.014982
F
3.761841
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
MA
BARRETT
2
18
9
2.8284271
7
11
7
7
9
11
11
11
1.824890617
2.5360989
7.204769
F
4.0010809
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
MA
CARVIL
1
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
1.824890617
2.5360989
9.433187
F
10.321013
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
RD
CONYERS
17
91
5.352941176
3 5871503
1
13
1
3
4
8
10
13
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.466577
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
MA
CONYERS
17
89
5.235294118
3.4736402
0
12
2
3
4
8
11
12
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.670174
F
5.544521
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std_state
crit 3SD
f!ag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
RD
DONDELL
17
97
5.705882353
2.2848607
2
11
3
4
6
7
9
11
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.465577
F
10.304348
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
LA
DONDELL
17
53
3.117647059
2.3948474
0
8
1
1
2
5
7
8
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.919454
F
3.4004489
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
MA
DONDELL
17
85
5
3.4278273
0
10
0
2
5
7
10
10
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.670174
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
RD
EDWARDS
17
81
4.764705882
2.1659124
0
7
2
3
5
7
7
7
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.466577
F
8.1820778
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
LA
EDWARDS
17
63
3.705882353
4.1043377
0
14
0
1
2
5
13
14
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.919454
F
4.5889791
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITE ELEMENT
5
MA
EDWARDS
17
70
4.117647059
3 7563671
0
11
0
1
3
8
9
11
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.670174
F
3.7274874
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
1
MA
ALEXANDER
15
68
4.533333333
2.8751812
0
8
0
3
5
8
8
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.335141
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
1
LA
RICHARDSON
12
46
3.833333333
2.2896341
0
7
0
2.5
4.5
5.5
6
7
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.289481
F
3.96 4543
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
2
MA
CARTER CAIN
15
54
3.6
3.0891515
0
13
1
2
3
5
6
13
1.728771036
2.047211
3.314534
F
3.5400546
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
2
RD
ROSALES
16
67
4.1875
3.6917701
0
13
0
1
4
5.5
11
13
0.914374058
1.381785
1.950713
F
9.4750661
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
2
LA
ROSALES
16
53
3.3125
3.7187588
0
13
0
1
2
5
10
13
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.618646
F
4.6018874
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
2
MA
ROSALES
16
88
5.5
3.8470768
0
11
1
2.5
5
8.5
11
11
1.728771036
2.047211
3.264179
F
7.3685205
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
3
RD
BOYANTON
16
62
3.875
5 5842039
0
22
0
1
1.5
5
10
22
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
5.7918564
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
3
LA
BOYANTON
16
57
3.5625
4.2421496
0
17
0
1
2.5
5.5
7
17
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
3
MA
BOYANTON
16
122
7.625
5.2519838
0
18
1
3.5
8
12
14
18
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
9.4548872
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
3
RD
CHARLES
16
58
3.625
2.2472205
0
8
1
2
3.5
5.5
6
8
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.572305
F
5.2560716
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
3
LA
CHARLES
16
69
4.3125
2.9147613
1
10
1
2
3.5
7
7
10
1.507762082
2.05317
3.04764
F
5.4642098
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
3
MA
CHARLES
16
88
5.5
3.0983867
1
10
1
3
5
8.5
10
10
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.698717
F
5.9613454
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
3
MA
WILSON
2
17
8.5
2.1213203
7
10
7
7
8.5
10
10
10
1.873920927
2.4330609
7.035222
F
3.8514001
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
4
RD
HERBERT
19
51
2.684210526
2.2373752
0
7
0
0
3
4
6
7
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.122339
F
4.49468
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
4
LA
HERBERT
19
68
3.578947368
3.0607877
0
10
0
1
3
6
8
10
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.804453
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
4
MA
HERBERT
19
79
4.157894737
3 113825
0
11
1
1
4
7
9
11
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.556963
F
4,071.1 822
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
4
RD
JOYNER KNIGHT
18
91
5.055555556
3.6857791
0
14
1
2
5
7
10
14
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
10.514756
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
4
LA
JOYNER KNIGHT
18
67
3.722222222
1.9037287
1
8
1
2
3.5
5
6
8
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.842798
F
4.8350737
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
4
MA
JOYNER KNIGHT
18
97
5.388888889
3.6159595
1
14
1
3
4.5
7
10
14
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.603069
F
6.0992555
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
4
RD
SIMPSON
18
86
4.777777778
3.6871088
1
14
1
2
3.5
7
11
14
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.153242
F
9.7955255
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
4
LA
SIMPSON
18
96
5.333333333
3 009788
1
14
2
3
5
6
10
14
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.842798
F
8.1969418
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
4
MA
SIMPSON
18
93
5.166666667
2.8952293
1
12
1
3
5
8
8
12
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.603069
F
5.7135933
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
4
MA
WASHINGTON
2
17
8.5
6 363961
4
13
4
4
8.5
13
13
13
1.874440105
2.4446497
7.060325
F
3.8328422
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
5
RD
BRADLEY JAMES
16
105
6.5625
4 381305
1
16
2
3
5
10
12
16
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
11.87061
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
5
LA
BRADLEY JAMES
16
113
7.0625
5.5912879
1
17
1
2
6
9.5
17
17
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
11.031519
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
5
MA
BRADLEY JAMES
16
149
9.3125
5 287958
2
23
2
6.5
9
12
15
23
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
11.809649
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
5
RD
BYRD
15
109
7.266666667
3.7122705
2
14
3
3
7
10
13
14
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.552498
F
12.985179
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
5
LA
BYRD
15
85
5.666666667
2.9680842
1
12
3
4
5
7
10
12
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.015343
F
8.0320278
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
5
MA
BYRD
15
121
8.066666667
3.8815804
1
15
1
6
8
11
13
15
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.789344
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
5
RD
COLLIER
16
109
6.8125
3.6188166
2
13
2
4
6.5
9.5
13
13
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
5
LA
COLLIER
16
63
3.9375
2.5940637
0
8
0
2
4
6.5
7
8
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
4.9059746
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WHITEFOORD EL
5
MA
COLLIER
16
81
5.0625
2.6449638
0
10
1
3.5
5
6
10
10
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
5.1064402
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
1
MA
CRABTREE
6
29
4.833333333
3 7638633
0
8
0
0
7
7
8
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
4.257471
F
3.6884363
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
1
RD
NIX
4
27
6.75
1.2583057
5
8
5
6
7
7.5
8
8
1.080588194
1.4903398
3.316098
F
7.6082138
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
1
LA
NIX
4
38
9.5
5.6862407
1
13
1
6.5
12
13
13
13
1.603036826
1.9473378
4.524044
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
1
MA
NIX
4
28
7
4.6904158
1
12
1
3.5
7.5
11
12
12
1.74803401
2.0489466
4.821454
F
5.1265035
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
2
LA
KIHARA
7
29
4.142857143
3.6709931
1
11
1
1
3
7
11
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
3.283776
F
4.3118591
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
2
LA
MASON
6
37
6.166666667
2.7141604
3
11
3
5
5.5
7
11
11
1.319203885
1.7325901
3.441185
F
6.8532139
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
2
MA
MASON
6
41
6.833333333
4.3089055
3
13
3
3
5.5
11
13
13
1.728771036
2.047211
4.236082
F
6.1076133
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
2
RD
SHEPPARD
4
32
8
1 6329932
6
10
6
7
8
9
10
10
0.914374058
1.381785
2.987051
F
10.255758
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
2
LA
SHEPPARD
4
46
11.5
2.8867513
8
15
8
9.5
12
14
15
15
1.319203885
1.7325901
3.918089
F
11.752112
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
2
MA
SHEPPARD
4
42
10.5
0.5773503
10
11
10
10
11
11
11
11
1.728771036
2.047211
4.799587
F
8.5689547
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WILLIAMS ELEM
3
LA
TAYLOR
3
17
5.666666667
4.5092498
1
10
1
1
6
10
10
10
1.507762082
2.05317
5.063957
F
3.508445
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
1
MA
GAMBLE CHASITY
16
63
3.9375
1.9482898
1
8
1
2
4.5
5
6
8
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
4.2743251
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
1
RD
LADIPO EDITH
16
59
3.6875
2.6512576
1
9
1
1.5
3
5.5
8
9
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.198343
F
6.9968252
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
1
LA
LADIPO EDITH
16
102
6.375
3.9812058
1
16
2
3.5
7
8
13
16
1.603036826
1.9473378
3.06354
F
9.8020243
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
1
MA
LADIPO EDITH
16
69
4.3125
3 2190837
0
11
0
2
4
6.5
8
11
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.284744
F
5.0064086
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
1
RD
PICKETT DELORES
19
70
3.684210526
2.6257831
0
10
0
2
3
5
7
10
1.080588194
1.4903398
2.10631
F
7.6149926
SystemName
School Name
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std state
crit 3SD
f«30L.3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
1
LA
PICKETT DELORES
19
164
8.631578947
4.9689092
1
19
2
5
7
13
14
19
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.943287
F
15-732609
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
1
MA
PICKETT DELORES
19
153
8.052631579
3.6738367
2
15
3
5
9
11
14
15
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.158216
F
13.412308
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
1
LA
SMITH CRYSTAL
18
63
3.5
2.8336217
0
9
0
2
2.5
5
8
9
1.603036826
1.9473378
2.980013
F
4.1328901
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
1
MA
SMITH CRYSTAL
18
71
3.944444444
2.6002765
1
9
1
2
3.5
6
7
9
1.74803401
2.0489466
3.196858
F
4.5479859
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
2
RD
DANIELS CARLA
17
52
3.058823529
1.5600716
1
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.914374058
1.381785
1.91977
F
6.3988189
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
2
LA
DANIELS CARLA
17
51
3
2 3717082
0
9
0
1
3
4
7
9
1.319203885
1.7325901
2.579848
F
3.9998497
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
2
MA
DANIELS CARLA
17
70
4.117647059
2.4208044
1
10
1
2
3
6
7
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.218336
F
4.8112229
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
2
RD
KING CLYDE
16
36
2.25
2 113449
0
8
0
0.5
2
3
5
8
0.914374058
1.381785
1.950713
F
3.8663786
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
2
MA
LEE DAVIS ANGEL
13
59
4.538461538
2.6017745
1
10
2
3
4
5
9
10
1.728771036
2.047211
3.432154
F
4.9484315
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
3
RD
KIRKLAND CHARON
15
100
6.666666667
6.5100655
0
19
0
1
4
11
17
19
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
11.400888
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
3
LA
KIRKLAND CHARON
15
92
6.133333333
7.4149142
0
31
1
2
4
8
9
31
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
8.725415
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
3
RD
ST ARKS FRANCHES
15
60
4
4
0
14
0
1
3
6
9
14
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.618213
F
5.8673265
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
3
LA
ST ARKS FRANCHES
15
65
4.333333333
3 1773004
0
12
1
2
3
6
8
12
1.507762082
2.05317
3.098141
F
5.3299972
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
3
MA
ST ARKS FRANCHES
15
91
6.066666667
4.8471887
0
18
0
3
5
8
12
18
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.758562
F
6.6740765
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
3
RD
WHITE CHIARA
14
106
7.571428571
3.7970492
2
13
3
4
7
11
13
13
1.172489269
1.8664211
2.668955
F
12.828101
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
3
LA
WHITE CHIARA
14
96
6.857142857
4.4002997
0
13
0
5
5.5
11
13
13
1.507762082
2.05317
3.15396
F
9.7486082
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
3
MA
WHITE CHIARA
14
143
10.21428571
6.5536669
0
18
0
4
12
16
18
18
1.873920927
2.4330609
3.82471
F
12.826143
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
4
RD
BAUGH CELESIA
19
67
3.526315789
4.2343624
0
12
0
0
2
8
11
12
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.122339
F
6.7348316
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
4
LA
BAUGH CELESIA
19
70
3.684210526
3.2326912
0
11
0
1
2
6
8
11
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.804453
F
4.8860744
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
4
MA
BAUGH CELESIA
19
97
5.105263158
4.0537327
0
12
0
1
6
8
11
12
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.556963
F
5.7606744
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
4
LA
COLEMAN DAPHNE
18
65
3.611111111
2.9533409
0
10
1
1
2.5
6
8
10
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.842798
F
4.6032207
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
4
MA
COLEMAN DAPHNE
18
77
4.277777778
3.0059853
0
10
0
2
3.5
7
8
10
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.603069
F
4.1709444
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
4
RD
STROZIER ASHLYN
19
130
6.842105263
4.7406418
0
17
1
4
5
9
14
17
0.994595544
1.6385729
2.122339
F
15.555429
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
4
LA
STROZIER ASHLYN
19
167
8.789473684
5.5033217
0
20
2
5
9
13
17
20
1.405105438
2.0332046
2.804453
F
15.831026
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
4
MA
STROZIER ASHLYN
19
147
7.736842105
4.6885452
0
17
3
4
8
11
16
17
1.874440105
2.4446497
3.556963
F
10.452875
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
5
RD
JOHNSON MICHELE
15
92
6.133333333
4.4859569
1
16
2
3
4
9
12
16
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.552498
F
10.584642
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
5
LA
JOHNSON MICHELE
15
61
4.066666667
2.6040262
1
11
1
2
4
6
6
11
1.434674213
2.0406349
3.015343
F
4.9953389
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
5
MA
JOHNSON MICHELE
15
179
11.93333333
6.5625198
1
22
4
7
12
18
22
22
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.789344
F
15.437028
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
5
RD
MOSS
16
43
2.6875
2.4689741
0
9
0
1
2
4
6
9
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
3.3937155
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
5
LA
MOSS
16
96
6
2.1602469
0
9
4
5
6
7.5
9
9
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
5
MA
MOSS
16
96
6
3.8122609
0
13
1
4
5
8.5
12
13
1.824890617
2.5360989
3.726965
F
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
5
RD
WARTHEN SUSAN
16
84
5.25
4.5971005
0
16
1
1.5
4
7.5
13
16
1.136148015
1.8284998
2.507523
F
8.9994039
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
WOODSON ELEME
5
LA
WARTHEN SUSAN
16
72
4.5
4.3665394
0
18
0
1.5
4
6
9
18
1.434674213
2.0406349
2.96515
F
8.0085727
SystemName
STATE AVERAGE
School Nairn
STATE AVERAGE
Grade
6
Content
RD
TeacherName
STATE AVERAGE
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
0.8192
Std classrc
Min
0
Max
29
P10
0
P25
0
P50
0
P75
1
P90
2
P95
3
Mean state
0.819264393
Std state
crit_3SD
N/A
flag_3SD
N/A
Flag_Z
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
6
LA
STATE AVERAGE
120,336
120,283
98,587
115,767
0.96245521
1 5489982
0
36
0
0
0
1
3
4
0.96245521
1.5489992
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
6
MA
STATE AVERAGE
120,478
171,897
1.426791613
1.9623941
0
43
0
0
1
4
5
1.426791613
1 -96239.il
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
7
RD
STATE AVERAGE
120,692
97,579
0.808496006
1.2652424
0
33
0
0
0
1
2
3
0.808496006
1.2652424
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
7
LA
STATE AVERAGE
120,629
110,213
0.9136
1.483114
0
41
0
0
0
1
3
4
0.913652604
1.483114
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
7
MA
STATE AVERAGE
120,777
143/487
1.18803249
1.7724323
0
41
0
0
1
3
4
1.18803249
1.7724323
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
8
RD
STATE AVERAGE
120,859
111,596
0.923
1.3850903
0
35
0
0
1
1
2
3
0.92335697
1.3850903
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
8
LA
STATE AVERAGE
120,724
125,520
1.039726981
1.6325657
0
41
0
0
1
1
3
4
1.039726981
1.6325657
N/A
N/A
N/A
STATE AVERAGE
STATE AVERAGE
8
MA
STATE AVERAGE
120,953
186,083
1.538473622
2.1363255
0
45
0
0
1
2
4
5
1.538473622
2.1363255
N/A
N/A
N/A
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
ATLANTA CHART
8
RD
RILEY
6
18
3
1.4142136
1
5
1
2
3
4
5
5
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.619739
F
3.672479651
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENJAMIN SCA
8
MA
BALL
12
68
5.666666667
3.5760144
1
13
1
2.5
6.5
8
8
13
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.388586
F
6.693961312
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENJAMIN SCA
8
LA
COOPER
6
19
3.166666667
5.3447794
0
14
0
1
1
2
14
14
1.039726981
1.6325657
3.039203
F
3.191244953
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENJAMIN SCA
8
LA
FOSTER
17
39
2.294117647
3.2932641
0
12
0
1
1
3
9
12
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.227593
F
3.168010524
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENJAMIN SCA
8
MA
FOSTER
17
109
6.411764706
4.0475119
1
18
3
4
5
8
11
18
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.092879
F
9.40544592
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENJAMIN SCA
8
LA
MITCHELL
18
57
3.166666667
4.7927642
0
18
0
0
1.5
3
11
18
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.194125
F
5.527398398
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENJAMIN SCA
8
MA
MITCHELL
18
93
5.166666667
4.5016337
0
15
0
2
4.5
8
14
15
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.049084
F
7.205418598
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENJAMIN SCA
8
RD
SHORTER
15
32
2.133333333
2.2635833
0
7
0
0
1
4
5
7
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.996243
F
3.383330628
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENJAMIN SCA
8
LA
SHORTER
15
38
2.533333333
2.0998866
0
7
0
1
2
4
6
7
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.304307
F
3.543326096
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BENJAMIN SCA
8
MA
SHORTER
15
50
3.333333333
2.1930627
0
7
0
2
3
5
6
7
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.193264
F
3.253933821
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
6
LA
KYLE BERRY
12
30
2.5
1.8829377
0
6
0
1
2.5
3.5
5
6
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.303928
F
3.438485597
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
7
MA
BELITA HAMILTON
19
63
3.315789474
3.1807168
0
12
0
1
2
5
8
12
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.407904
F
5.232740056
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
8
MA
CHADWI ROBINSON
17
74
4.352941176
3.2966115
0
14
0
3
4
4
8
14
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.092879
F
5.431918989
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
8
RD
DONNA BEAUFORD
20
45
2.25
2.2682012
0
8
0
0
2
3.5
5.5
7
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.852504
F
4.283423368
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
8
LA
DONNA BEAUFORD
20
46
2.3
2.7739389
0
9
0
0
1
3.5
7
8.5
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.134885
F
3.452303572
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
8
MA
DONNA BEAUFORD
20
67
3.35
2.0844032
1
7
1
1
3
5
6.5
7
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.971564
F
3.792208762
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
8
RD
ESTHER JORDAN
16
67
4.1875
2.5876308
1
9
1
2
3.5
6
9
9
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.962175
F
9.42651355
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
8
LA
ESTHER JORDAN
16
76
4.75
2.4899799
1
10
1
3
5
6.5
7
10
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.264151
F
9.090655513
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
8
MA
SHADON ROBINSON
9
94
10.44444444
5.9605182
2
19
2
6
12
12
19
19
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.674799
F
12.5064802
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BROWN MIDDLE
8
MA
SONYA CLARK
20
72
3.6
2.062191
0
7
0.5
2
4
5
6
6.5
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.971564
F
4.315553164
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BUNCHE MIDDLE
6
LA
GORDON
25
57
2.28
2.1509688
0
9
0
1
2
3
6
6
0.96245521
1.5489992
1.891855
F
4.252890519
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BUNCHE MIDDLE
7
RD
CUSHMEER
18
32
1.777777778
1.9868851
0
7
0
0
1
3
5
7
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.703157
F
3.25021861
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BUNCHE MIDDLE
7
LA
KIRBY
24
45
1.875
2.5075972
0
10
0
0
1
3
5
7
0.913652604
1.483114
1.821871
F
3.175495153
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BUNCHE MIDDLE
7
RD
MAYFIELD
16
30
1.875
1.5
0
5
0
1
1.5
3
4
5
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.757428
F
3.371698651
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BUNCHE MIDDLE
7
LA
MAYFIELD
16
73
4.5625
2.1899391
2
10
2
3
4
6
7
10
0.913652604
1.483114
2.025988
F
9.841043941
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BUNCHE MIDDLE
8
RD
HARRIS 0
24
49
2.041666667
2.136213
0
7
0
0
1.5
3.5
5
7
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.771548
F
3.955392955
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BUNCHE MIDDLE
8
LA
HARRIS 0
24
55
2.291666667
1.7564581
0
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.039465
F
3.756802537
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BUNCHE MIDDLE
8
MA
HARRIS 0
24
77
3.208333333
3.230011
0
14
0
1
3
4.5
7
7
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.8467
F
3.829289357
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
BUNCHE MIDDLE
8
RD
LONG
21
45
2.142857143
2.9032002
0
12
0
0
1
3
5
6
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.830111
F
4.034720341
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CHARLES R DRE
7
RD
PETERKIN
19
37
1.947368421
2.9528458
0
13
0
0
1
3
4
13
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.679296
F
3.923540583
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CHARLES R DRE
8
MA
WALKER
22
74
3.363636364
5.2421865
0
24
0
0
2
4
6
10
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.904872
F
4.007241462
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
6
RD
BARNETT
10
103
10.3
10.488618
0
22
0
0
9.5
20
21.5
22
0.819264393
1.3027204
2.055133
F
23.01393141
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
6
LA
BARNETT
10
109
10.9
11.090036
0
24
0
0
9.5
22
23.5
24
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.431965
F
20.28747089
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
6
MA
BARNETT
10
157
15.7
15.333696
0
36
0.5
1
15
30
33
36
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.288482
F
23.00039919
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
6
MA
HAWK
14
202
14.42857143
6.4416229
3
24
7
8
15
20
23
24
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.000207
F
24.79023205
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
6
MA
SOUTHALL
23
344
14.95652174
4.4668299
0
21
11
13
16
18
19
20
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.654354
F
33.06486997
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
6
RD
STUCKEY
7
43
6.142857143
7.7120808
0
16
0
0
0
14
16
16
0.819264393
1.3027204
2.296411
F
10.81191503
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
6
LA
STUCKEY
7
53
7.571428571
9.8633521
0
21
0
0
0
20
21
21
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.718855
F
11.28838549
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
6
MA
STUCKEY
7
75
10.71428571
13.31308
0
31
0
0
2
26
31
31
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.651937
F
12.52164359
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
7
MA
LARE
20
212
10.6
6.269391
0
22
0
6.5
13
15
16.5
20
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.377016
F
23.74792961
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
7
MA
TOLIVER
16
222
13.875
4.745173
5
24
5
13
15
16
19
24
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.517357
F
28.63176724
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
7
RD
USHRY
15
83
5.533333333
6.0458565
0
16
0
0
3
11
15
16
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.788549
F
14.46301261
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
7
LA
USHRY
15
90
6
7.4833148
0
19
0
0
1
13
18
19
0.913652604
1.483114
2.062468
F
13.28241752
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
7
MA
USHRY
15
122
8.133333333
9.1563145
0
22
0
0
3
18
19
22
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.560953
F
15.17633931
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
8
RD
WALLER
20
96
4.8
6.7792252
0
20
0
0
1
8.5
17.5
19
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.852504
F
12.51678332
SystemName
SchoolName
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Win
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std state
crit_3SD
flag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
8
LA
WALLER
20
105
5.25
6.8891601
0
20
0
0
2
11
17
19
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.134885
F
11.53
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
COAN MIDDLES
8
MA
WALLER
20
143
7.15
8.5978884
0
23
0
1
2
17
20.5
23
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.971564
F
11.747043S8
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CO RETTA SCOTT
7
MA
MITCHELL
20
102
5.1
4.2537909
0
17
1
2.5
3.5
6.5
11
14
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.377016
F
9.870532275
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CO RETTA SCOTT
7
RD
PATTERSON
13
25
1.923076923
3.0676141
0
11
0
0
1
2
4
11
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.861241
F
3.176212525
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
CRIM HIGH SCH
8
MA
SHANETTE JONES
9
47
5.222222222
4.9187849
0
15
0
1
5
7
15
15
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.674799
F
5.173015929
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
MA
AXTEL LAURENCE
11
94
8.545454545
7.7506598
0
20
0
1
9
17
18
20
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.201844
F
12.03118873
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
MA
BOWERS LEON
19
268
14.10526316
12.305801
0
36
0
3
9
27
29
36
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.777404
F
28.16160923
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
RD
BROWN GUY
11
32
2.909090909
64877507
0
22
0
0
1
1
5
22
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.997619
F
5.320535643
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
LA
BROWN GUY
11
30
2.727272727
6.1496489
0
21
0
0
1
2
3
21
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.363578
F
3.778722147
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
MA
BROWN GUY
11
146
13.27272727
16.40787
0
35
0
0
1
33
35
35
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.201844
F
20.0207102
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
RD
DEEPNARIN
5
70
14
6.9641941
7
24
7
9
12
18
24
24
0.819264393
1.3027204
2.567047
F
22.62421034
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
LA
DEEPNARIN
5
51
10.2
5.7183914
3
17
3
6
11
14
17
17
0.96245521
1.5489992
3.040656
F
13.33491863
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
MA
DEEPNARIN
6
139
23.16666667
4.708149
15
28
15
21
25
26
28
28
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.830224
F
27.13603784
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
MA
GOODWIN RENAE
12
170
14.16666667
12.209038
0
28
0
1
18
26
26
28
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.126275
F
22.48896968
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
MA
KOEN KELLI
14
60
4.285714286
4.5137154
0
18
0
1
3.5
6
6
18
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.000207
F
5.451050354
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
MA
MOBLEYTATIA
21
272
12.95238095
8.6456705
0
27
2
6
13
21
26
26
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.71148
F
26.91451486
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
MA
STARR CHERYL
12
68
5.666666667
8.0603782
0
21
0
0
1.5
12
18
21
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.126275
F
7.484407902
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
6
MA
WILLIAMS BRANDY
11
73
6.636363636
6.1200119
0
20
0
2
6
10
12
20
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.201844
F
8.80465121
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
7
MA
GLENN ROBIN
15
110
7.333333333
8.2346538
0
23
0
t
2
15
18
23
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.560953
F
13.4282406
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
7
MA
JONES FANNIE
12
75
6.25
7.7356906
0
19
0
1
2
14
18
19
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.723004
F
9.893280264
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
7
RD
LESLIE ANDREA
12
53
4.416666667
8.5648153
0
25
0
0
1
2
20
25
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.904228
F
9.878794894
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
7
LA
LESLIE ANDREA
12
44
3.666666667
9.63 2 6465
0
34
0
0
0.5
2
4
34
0.913652604
1.483114
2.198067
F
6.430200754
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
7
MA
LESLIE ANDREA
12
147
12.25
15.021954
0
41
0
0
6
21
38
41
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.723004
F
21.61988291
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
7
MA
MAY ROSHANDA
11
118
10.72727273
9.8903075
0
24
0
1
13
22
22
24
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.791258
F
17.85009224
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
7
MA
MILLS DEBORAH
7
73
10.42857143
11.942322
0
27
0
1
2
21
27
27
1.18803249
1.7724323
3.197782
F
13.79356918
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
7
RD
PRESIDENT RHINA
11
33
3
5.7965507
0
20
0
0
1
3
4
20
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.952951
F
5.744667327
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
7
MA
WILLARD JERRY
17
136
8
8.4187291
0
21
0
1
3
17
19
21
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.477666
F
15.84628142
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
MA
BROWN SHEILA
10
116
11.6
12.393547
0
27
0
0
8.5
23
27
27
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.56517
F
14.89348894
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
MA
DEEPNARAIN
8
40
5
4.5355737
1
13
1
2
3
8
13
13
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.804389
F
4.582951024
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
MA
JONES NAUTRI
14
131
9.357142857
6.9015845
0
24
1
5
9
12
20
24
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.251345
F
13.69397201
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
RD
JONES TRAVIS
5
112
22.4
12.856905
1
35
1
22
26
28
35
35
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.781651
F
34.6715554
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
LA
JONES TRAVIS
5
77
15.4
14.345731
0
33
0
6
10
28
33
33
1.039726981
1.6325657
3.230044
F
19.66876267
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
MA
JONES TRAVIS
5
83
16.6
13.164346
0
35
0
9
18
21
35
35
1.538473622
2.1363255
4.404655
F
15.76473105
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
MA
LEFTWICH MATTH
12
175
14.58333333
8.7433958
0
29
4
7.5
16
20
26
29
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.388586
F
21.15254429
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
MA
LOVETT HAROLD
6
112
18.66666667
12.500667
3
35
3
5
22
26
35
35
1.538473622
2.1363255
4.154927
F
19.63901724
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
MA
MILLEDGE NANCY
12
117
9.75
11.07926
0
30
0
0
6
19
24
30
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.388586
F
13.31518156
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
MA
PURNELL BYRON
12
162
13.5
9.5203132
0
29
2
5
14
22
23
29
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.388586
F
19.39589402
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
MA
STALLWORTH B
11
115
10.45454545
11.79291
0
36
0
1
7
16
27
36
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.470853
F
13.84211581
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
HARPER ARCHER
8
MA
SYPHERTT MALIKA
15
267
17.8
14.905416
0
40
0
1
21
29
39
40
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.193264
F
29.48081698
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
IMAGINE WESLE
6
LA
DARDEN KACIE
24
46
1.916666667
4.0744876
0
20
0
0
1
2
4
5
0.96245521
1.5489992
1.91102
F
3.017859786
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
IMAGINE WESLE
7
RD
REAGIN JASON
17
30
1.764705882
1.8210372
0
6
0
0
1
3
4
6
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.729095
F
3.116046719
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
IMAGINE WESLE
7
MA
REAGIN JASON
16
42
2.625
2.4186773
0
8
0
1
2
4
6
8
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.517357
F
3.242927773
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
IMAGINE WESLE
7
LA
YOUNG ARI
15
31
2.066666667
2.7637104
0
9
0
0
1
2
8
9
0.913652604
1.483114
2.062468
F
3.010965039
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
INMAN MIDDLE
6
RD
BOATRIGHT
16
39
2.4375
1.931105
0
8
1
1
2
3
5
8
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.796305
F
4.968788641
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
INMAN MIDDLE
6
MA
BOATRIGHT
16
52
3.25
2.081666
0
8
1
2
3
4.5
6
8
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.898587
F
3.716294036
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
INMAN MIDDLE
6
LA
CAMPBELL
20
42
2.1
3.3229663
0
14
0
0
0.5
3
5
9.5
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.001555
F
3.284220549
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
INMAN MIDDLE
7
LA
LEWIS
18
37
2.055555556
2.0428418
0
6
0
0
1.5
4
5
6
0.913652604
1.483114
1.962373
F
3.266562162
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
INMAN MIDDLE
7
RD
TODD
19
35
1.842105263
3.2363072
0
14
0
0
1
3
4
14
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.679296
F
3.56089744
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
RD
BROWN
11
31
2.818181818
2.5226249
0
7
1
1
1
6
6
7
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.997619
F
5.089088174
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
MA
BROWN
11
49
4.454545455
3.1420896
1
12
1
2
4
6
6
12
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.201844
F
5.117179761
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
RD
CHAMPION
8
62
7.75
50920105
2
16
2
3.5
6.5
12
16
16
0.819264393
1.3027204
2.201008
F
15.04780325
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
LA
CHAMPION
8
32
4
4.472136
0
13
0
0.5
3
6
13
13
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.605417
F
5.546467781
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
MA
CHAMPION
8
60
7.5
3.8913824
1
12
1
4.5
8
11
12
12
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.508225
F
8.753403409
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
RD
CURRAN
9
36
4
4.5552168
0
12
0
0
2
8
12
12
0.819264393
1.3027204
2.121985
F
7.324830923
SystemName
SchoolName
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Min
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std state
crit_3SD
flag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
s
RD
JEFFERSON
12
79
6.583333333
4.6604396
1
15
2
2
6
11
12
15
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.947453
F
15.32740273
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
LA
JEFFERSON
12
38
3.166666667
2.4058011
0
7
0
1.5
2.5
5.5
6
7
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.303928
F
4.929384429
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
RD
JOHNSON
11
53
4.818181818
3.7099375
0
13
0
2
5
7
8
13
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.997619
F
10.1809325
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
LA
JOHNSON
11
43
3.909090909
2.7732488
1
11
2
2
3
5
6
11
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.363578
F
6.309160842
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
MA
JOHNSON
11
64
5.818181818
4.7711253
0
15
2
2
4
9
12
15
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.201844
F
7.421849417
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
RD
MCEACHERN
12
52
4.333333333
3.6013455
0
12
0
1.5
3.5
6.5
8
12
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.947453
F
9.344362535
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
LA
MCEACHERN
12
55
4.583333333
3.6793857
0
11
0
1.5
4
7.5
9
11
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.303928
F
8.097544447
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
MA
MCEACHERN
12
53
4.416666667
2.8109634
0
9
1
2
4.5
6.5
8
9
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.126275
F
5.277854699
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
RD
P JACKSON
15
69
4.6
3.9242834
0
13
1
2
4
7
12
13
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.828347
F
11.240114
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
LA
P JACKSON
15
51
3.4
2.8982753
0
9
0
1
3
5
8
9
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.162305
F
6.094625784
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
MA
P JACKSON
15
83
5.533333333
3.8147583
1
15
2
2
4
8
10
15
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.946856
F
8.104675596
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
RD
WILLIS
12
45
3.75
2.8959219
0
9
1
1
3.5
6
7
9
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.947453
F
7.793203967
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
6
MA
WILLIS
12
38
3.166666667
3.2983008
0
10
0
0.5
2.5
4.5
8
10
1.426791613
1.9623941
3.126275
F
3.071301497
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
7
RD
ALEXANDER
27
54
2
1.9611614
0
8
0
1
2
3
4
7
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.538984
F
4.89332047
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
7
LA
ALEXANDER
27
54
2
2.855494
0
11
0
0
1
2
7
10
0.913652604
1.483114
1.769929
F
3.806064018
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
7
MA
ALEXANDER
27
213
7.888888889
6.4470228
0
24
0
2
7
14
16
17
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.211347
F
19.64457009
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
7
MA
EDWARDS
25
258
10.32
6.2431296
0
22
1
7
10
14
20
21
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.251492
F
25.76111746
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
7
MA
KIEL
5
27
5.4
7.4027022
0
14
0
0
0
13
14
14
1.18803249
1.7724323
3.566
F
5.31374061
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
7
RD
MACK
26
86
3.307692308
2.6498186
0
10
0
1
3
5
6
8
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.552899
F
10.07194437
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
7
LA
MACK
26
110
4.230769231
4.3387343
0
15
0
1
3
7
12
14
0.913652604
1.483114
1.78624
F
11.40441189
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
7
MA
MACK
26
143
5.5
4.1593269
0
14
0
2
6
9
10
14
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.23084
F
12.40487778
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
7
LA
PARKER
27
53
1.962962963
3.4248131
0
15
0
0
1
3
5
10
0.913652604
1.483114
1.769929
F
3.676303193
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
7
MA
PARKER
27
100
3.703703704
3.5928863
0
12
0
0
3
6
9
10
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.211347
F
7.375069176
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
MA
CRAWFORD
13
47
3.615384615
2.8442475
0
9
1
1
2
6
7
9
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.316004
F
3.505275347
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
MA
DAVIS
11
42
3.818181818
4.6865378
0
15
0
0
3
7
8
15
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.470853
F
3.53922506
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
RD
EASTERLING
10
51
5.1
5.820462
0
15
0
0
2.5
11
14
15
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.237369
F
9.535627614
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
MA
EASTERLING
10
68
6.8
5.4731669
0
15
0
1
7.5
11
13.5
15
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.56517
F
7.788329721
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
MA
ELLIS
12
76
6.333333333
3.2844906
1
11
2
3.5
7
9
10
11
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.388586
F
7.774976862
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
RD
EVANS
11
25
2.272727273
3.1333978
0
10
0
0
1
3
6
10
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.176218
F
3.231092674
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
MA
EVANS
11
49
4.454545455
3.5316749
0
10
1
1
3
7
10
10
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.470853
F
4.527173489
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
MA
LANDRUM
13
77
5.923076923
4.590961
0
14
1
2
5
9
11
14
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.316004
F
7.400048393
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
MA
LOVETT
11
48
4.363636364
4.2017312
0
11
0
1
4
8
11
11
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.470853
F
4.386037999
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
MA
RAG LAND
8
40
5
3.0237158
1
9
1
2
5.5
7.5
9
9
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.804389
F
4.582951024
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
RD
VINCENT
13
36
2.769230769
1.4232502
1
5
1
2
3
4
5
5
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.075822
F
4.805024492
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
LA
VINCENT
13
36
2.769230769
2.5869495
0
8
0
1
3
3
7
8
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.398104
F
3.819640899
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KENNEDY MIDDL
8
MA
VINCENT
13
73
5.615384615
3.5716117
1
12
1
4
5
7
11
12
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.316004
F
6.880745321
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KING MIDDLE S
6
RD
A JONES
15
36
2.4
2.5856748
0
9
0
1
1
4
6
9
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.828347
F
4.699521543
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KING MIDDLE S
6
LA
A JONES
15
36
2.4
2.32379
0
7
0
0
3
4
6
7
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.162305
F
3.594312433
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KING MIDDLE S
8
MA
EDWARDS
22
71
3.227272727
3.0850148
0
11
0
1
2
4
7
10
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.904872
F
3.707847876
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KING MIDDLE S
8
RD
PENDERGRASS
19
36
1.894736842
1.9117978
0
6
0
0
2
3
5
6
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.876641
F
3.056946407
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KING MIDDLE S
8
RD
SHANNON
23
46
2
1.4459976
0
6
0
1
2
3
4
4
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.789791
F
3.727842673
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KING MIDDLE S
8
MA
SHANNON
23
72
3.130434783
2.8172254
0
11
0
1
3
4
8
8
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.874838
F
3.573789456
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KING MIDDLES
8
LA
TATE
21
46
2.19047619
2.0885174
0
7
0
1
2
3
5
7
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.108492
F
3.230127564
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KIPP WEST ATL
7
MA
CONOVER
23
70
3.043478261
3.98267
0
14
0
0
1
5
8
13
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.296766
F
5.020448538
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
KIPP WEST ATL
7
MA
MILLER
23
53
2.304347826
2.2448888
0
9
0
1
2
4
5
6
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.296766
F
3.020516032
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
6
LA
BROWN H
20
41
2.05
2.6847523
0
9
0
0
1
3
6.5
8.5
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.001555
F
3.13986489
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
6
RD
HILL H
19
34
1.789473684
1.652572
0
6
0
0
2
3
4
6
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.715858
F
3.246317619
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
6
MA
HUSBAND LIEDE
22
69
3.136363636
2.9486955
0
14
1
1
3
4
5
7
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.681943
F
4.086133106
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
6
LA
NELLOMS J
19
44
2.315789474
1.9451544
0
6
0
1
2
4
6
6
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.02855
F
3.808295929
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
6
MA
NELLOMS J
19
63
3.315789474
2.6045394
0
10
0
2
3
4
9
10
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.777404
F
4.195870093
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
6
LA
NIVENS PEGGY
26
61
2.346153846
2.5130429
0
11
0
1
1.5
3
6
6
0.96245521
1.5489992
1.873806
F
4.554880604
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
7
LA
BECKS VELMA
15
35
2.333333333
2.1269249
0
7
0
1
2
4
5
7
0.913652604
1.483114
2.062468
F
3.707334698
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
7
RD
GUISE BARBARA
21
35
1.666666667
2.3309512
0
9
0
0
1
3
4
5
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.636792
F
3.108204499
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
7
LA
MOORE TIARRA
19
59
3.105263 158
1.5597271
1
5
1
2
3
5
5
5
0.913652604
1.483114
1.934402
F
6.441183367
SystemName
School Nairn
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Win
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std state
crit_3SD
flag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
7
MA
MOORE TIARRA
19
84
4.421052632
2.7951504
0
12
0
2
5
5
7
12
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.407904
F
7.950!
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
7
LA
THOMPSON PAMELA
15
32
2.133333333
2.3563491
0
7
0
0
2
3
7
7
0.913652604
1.483114
2.062468
F
3.185057454
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
LONG MIDDLES
8
RD
LEVY RECARDO
22
41
1.863636364
2.0070223
0
7
0
0
1
3
5
5
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.809264
F
3.184125547
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
RD
LANDERS
21
110
5.238095238
4.0237391
0
16
1
1
6
8
9
10
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.672095
F
15.54410794
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
LA
LANDERS
21
94
4.476190476
3.092233
0
13
0
2
5
6
7
8
0.96245521
1.5489992
1.976513
F
10.39507185
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
MA
LANDERS
21
219
10.42857143
8.5414954
0
35
1
6
9
13
17
27
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.71148
F
21.02092392
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
RD
MITCHELL
20
70
3.5
2.6655699
0
9
0
1.5
3.5
5
7.5
8.5
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.693156
F
9.202752873
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
LA
MITCHELL
20
107
5.35
4.0428625
0
17
1
2.5
5
7
10.5
14
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.001555
F
12.66733836
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
MA
MITCHELL
20
61
3.05
3.2843328
0
10
0
0
2
5
9
9.5
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.743206
F
3.699159375
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
RD
NORTHERN
23
76
3.304347826
4.5169859
0
13
0
1
1
3
13
13
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.634172
F
9.148579602
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
LA
NORTHERN
23
75
3.260869565
3.7564174
0
14
0
1
2
4
9
11
0.96245521
1.5489992
1.931421
F
7.116083804
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
MA
NORTHERN
23
251
10.91304348
6.5220817
0
24
3
7
9
15
20
21
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.654354
F
23.18314419
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
LA
OSEJI
11
52
4.727272727
5.9006933
0
21
1
1
3
6
8
21
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.363578
F
8.061003016
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
RD
PHILLIPS
23
101
4.391304348
3.3539547
0
12
1
1
4
8
8
10
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.634172
F
13.15009848
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
LA
PHILLIPS
23
109
4.739130435
3.4538173
0
11
1
2
5
8
10
10
0.96245521
1.5489992
1.931421
F
11.69290356
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
RD
POWELL
20
73
3.65
4.8911843
0
19
0
0
2
6
9.5
16
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.693156
F
9.717690985
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
LA
POWELL
20
106
5.3
4.7027428
0
15
0
1.5
4.5
8
13.5
15
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.001555
F
12.5229827
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
RD
SIMPSON
22
47
2.136363636
3.2263123
0
14
0
0
1
2
4
8
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.652487
F
4.74218639
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
6
LA
SIMPSON
22
57
2.590909091
3.0962203
0
12
0
t
1
4
6
8
0.96245521
1.5489992
1.953198
F
4.931006948
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
RD
ELDER
25
63
2.52
3.2929217
0
12
0
0
1
3
7
11
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.567641
F
6.763542074
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
LA
ELDER
25
58
2.32
2.5119713
0
10
0
1
1
3
6
7
0.913652604
1.483114
1.803521
F
4.741198047
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
MA
ELDER
25
118
4.72
4.1484937
0
17
1
2
3
7
10
10
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.251492
F
9.963617348
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
RD
HUDSON
26
43
1.653846154
1.8534791
0
8
0
0
1
2
4
5
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.552899
F
3.406823086
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
LA
HUDSON
26
87
3.346153846
2.575924
0
13
1
2
3
4
6
6
0.913652604
1.483114
1.78624
F
8.363060217
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
MA
HUDSON
26
77
2.961538462
2.8492914
0
10
0
1
2
4
8
8
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.23084
F
5.102108207
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
RD
LEWIS
28
53
1.892857143
1.9310194
0
8
0
0.5
1
3
4
5
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.525821
F
4.535020291
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
LA
LEWIS
28
68
2.428571429
2.6587183
0
10
0
0.5
1
4
6
8
0.913652604
1.483114
1.754499
F
5.404977085
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
MA
LEWIS
28
160
5.714285714
3.8859399
1
15
1
2
5
9
11
12
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.192907
F
13.51288867
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
RD
SMILEY
23
86
3.739130435
1.9357261
1
9
1
2
4
5
6
6
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.59996
F
11.10840845
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
LA
SMILEY
23
130
5.652173913
2.6390201
2
10
2
3
6
7
9
10
0.913652604
1.483114
1.841405
F
15.32259191
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
MA
SMILEY
23
169
7.347826087
4.8580645
0
20
2
3
8
10
13
14
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.296766
F
16.66711431
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
RD
SMITH
26
56
2.153846154
1.9736729
0
7
0
1
2
2
5
7
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.552899
F
5.421859753
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
LA
SMITH
26
67
2.576923077
2.5639513
0
9
0
1
2
4
7
8
0.913652604
1.483114
1.78624
F
5.718406585
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
MA
SMITH
26
114
4.384615385
2.9675164
0
12
2
2
3
6
9
10
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.23084
F
9.196085089
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
RD
SWANSTON
27
140
5.185185185
2.542516
0
10
1
4
5
7
9
10
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.538984
F
17.97437765
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
7
MA
SWANSTON
27
65
2.407407407
2.575913
0
9
0
0
2
4
7
8
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.211347
F
3.574781283
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
RD
DRAPER
21
124
5.904761905
4.6249839
0
19
1
2
5
8
11
13
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.830111
F
16.48099464
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
LA
DRAPER
21
208
9.904761905
7.1126982
1
27
3
6
8
11
21
26
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.108492
F
24.88395683
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
MA
DRAPER
21
293
13.95238095
7.8068956
0
32
6
10
12
18
26
28
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.937027
F
26.62874652
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
RD
FORD
21
206
9.80952381
7.5935436
0
26
1
3
9
16
19
22
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.830111
F
29.39991227
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
LA
FORD
21
201
9.571428571
5.6883339
1
21
1
5
10
14
16
16
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.108492
F
23.94829754
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
MA
FORD
21
210
10
5.9245253
3
28
3
7
10
12
17
18
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.937027
F
18.15059796
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
RD
MITCHELL
23
78
3.391304348
3.9282095
0
15
0
1
2
5
9
11
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.789791
F
8.545190273
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
LA
MITCHELL
23
83
3.608695652
4.7361197
0
18
0
0
2
6
8
14
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.060967
F
7.546612788
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
MA
MITCHELL
23
138
6
6.78233
0
23
0
1
4
8
20
21
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.874838
F
10.01566893
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
RD
RAY
23
125
5.434782609
3.3415577
0
13
2
3
5
8
10
10
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.789791
F
15.62066956
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
LA
RAY
23
110
4.782608696
3.5923722
0
13
1
2
4
7
9
11
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.060967
F
10.99510451
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
MA
RAY
23
212
9.217391304
8.8674918
0
40
1
2
7
14
17
17
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.874838
F
17.23838227
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
RD
ROGERS
21
105
5
4.1952354
0
15
1
2
4
7
11
13
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.830111
F
13.4875869
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
LA
ROGERS
21
110
5.238095238
3.6180763
0
11
1
2
5
8
10
11
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.108492
F
11.78472678
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
MA
ROGERS
21
167
7.952380952
4.9343307
0
19
3
5
7
12
14
14
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.937027
F
13.75830413
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
RD
WILSON
21
109
5.19047619
3.4873923
1
12
2
2
4
7
11
12
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.830111
F
14.117778
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
LA
WILSON
21
101
4.80952381
3.4441116
0
15
2
3
4
6
10
10
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.108492
F
10.58173627
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PARKS MIDDLE
8
MA
WILSON
21
140
6.666666667
5.5437653
1
25
1
3
5
10
11
12
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.937027
F
11.00035219
SystemName
School Nairn
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Win
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std state
crit_3SD
flag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PRICE MIDDLE
7
RD
LOGAR
19
33
1.736842105
1.9391323
0
6
0
0
1
4
5
6
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.679296
F
3.198254297
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
PRICE MIDDLE
7
LA
SMITH
23
49
2.130434783
3.2235546
0
12
0
0
1
2
6
10
0.913652604
1.483114
1.841405
F
3.934614947
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SUTTON MIDDLE
8
RD
TRZCINSKI
23
50
2.173913043
2.0813495
0
9
0
0
2
3
4
5
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.789791
F
4.330011123
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SYLVAN HILLS
6
LA
MOORE
17
56
3.294117647
3.5840743
0
14
0
1
2
4
10
14
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.089518
F
6.206388357
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SYLVAN HILLS
7
LA
BAILEY LATANYA
16
38
2.375
2.028957
0
7
0
1
2
3.5
6
7
0.913652604
1.483114
2.025988
F
3.941294983
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SYLVAN HILLS
7
RD
GRAHAM MURIEL
20
34
1.7
1.3803127
0
4
0
0
2
3
3.5
4
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.657246
F
3.151117268
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SYLVAN HILLS
7
MA
PEEPLESCEDRIC
18
56
3.111111111
1.7111705
0
6
1
2
3
4
6
6
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.441331
F
4.603240105
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SYLVAN HILLS
7
LA
TURNIPSEED MINN
18
39
2.166666667
2.1760731
0
7
0
0
2
4
6
7
0.913652604
1.483114
1.962373
F
3.584409971
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SYLVAN HILLS
8
RD
ABDULLAH N
17
34
2
2.3452079
0
9
0
1
1
2
5
9
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.931158
F
3.204926825
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SYLVAN HILLS
8
LA
ABDULLAH N
17
39
2.294117647
1.9610171
0
6
0
1
2
3
6
6
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.227593
F
3.168010524
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SYLVAN HILLS
8
LA
SCOTT S
19
42
2.210526316
2.0703984
0
7
0
1
2
3
6
7
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.163336
F
3.125997373
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SYLVAN HILLS
8
RD
THOMPSON L
11
28
2.545454545
2.2522716
0
8
1
1
2
4
4
8
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.176218
F
3.884143279
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
SYLVAN HILLS
8
LA
THOMPSON L
11
35
3.181818182
3.6556308
0
12
0
1
2
5
7
12
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.516438
F
4.351747024
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THE BEST ACAD
7
RD
ENGLISH
13
27
2.076923077
2.4987176
0
9
0
0
2
2
4
9
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.861241
F
3.614626707
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THE BEST ACAD
7
RD
HOOKER
12
28
2.333333333
3.1430539
0
10
0
0
1
3
7
10
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.904228
F
4.174845543
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
THE BRIDGE
7
LA
PANN
4
15
3.75
1.5
2
5
2
2.5
4
5
5
5
0.913652604
1.483114
3.138324
F
3.824854307
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
6
RD
BROWN
21
80
3.80952381
2.9768952
0
9
0
1
4
6
8
8
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.672095
F
10.51882653
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
6
MA
BROWN
21
176
8.380952381
8.3094897
0
27
1
1
5
16
20
20
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.71148
F
16.23933127
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
6
RD
CULPEPPER
24
75
3.125
3.3532917
0
11
0
t
2
5
9
11
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.617014
F
8.670894583
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
6
MA
CULPEPPER
24
284
11.83333333
7.6024405
1
27
2
4.5
11
18
20
25
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.628508
F
25.97920266
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
6
RD
DAVIS
24
72
3
27662563
0
10
0
1
3
4
7
10
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.617014
F
8.20082255
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
6
LA
DAVIS
24
57
2.375
2.5162515
0
11
0
0
2
4
5
5
0.96245521
1.5489992
1.91102
F
4.467418713
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
6
MA
DAVIS
24
276
11.5
9.0984949
0
31
1
3
13
17
24
27
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.628508
F
25.14705933
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
6
RD
WORD
20
49
2.45
3.300319
0
10
0
0
1
4
8
9
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.693156
F
5.598186093
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
6
MA
WORD
20
97
4.85
6.7922169
0
22
0
0
1
11
14.5
19
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.743206
F
7.801212402
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
7
RD
B JONES
16
31
1.9375
1.8427787
0
7
0
1
1.5
2.5
4
7
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.757428
F
3.569289253
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
7
RD
BALL RIVNER
16
30
1.875
1.9621417
0
5
0
0.5
1
4
5
5
0.808496006
1.2652424
1.757428
F
3.371698651
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
7
LA
BALL RIVNER
16
43
2.6875
2.9147613
0
11
0
1
2
3
8
11
0.913652604
1.483114
2.025988
F
4.784116263
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
7
MA
BALL RIVNER
16
78
4.875
4.4553339
0
13
0
1.5
3.5
9.5
12
13
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.517357
F
8.320695667
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
7
MA
CLAY
18
62
3.444444444
3.9440532
0
13
0
1
2
6
11
13
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.441331
F
5.401134352
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
7
LA
LEONARD
20
50
2.5
2.7625313
0
10
0
0.5
2
3.5
6.5
9.5
0.913652604
1.483114
1.908556
F
4.783422885
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
7
MA
LEONARD
20
143
7.15
5.8873191
0
21
1.5
3
5
11
16.5
19
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.377016
F
15.04301674
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
7
MA
THOMAS
17
133
7.823529412
7.747865
0
28
0
1
6
13
17
28
1.18803249
1.7724323
2.477666
F
15.43576822
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
RD
BAYNES
13
29
2.230769231
2.712743
0
10
0
1
1
3
4
10
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.075822
F
3.403346392
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
RD
BLAIR
12
28
2.333333333
2.2696949
0
8
0
1
1.5
3.5
4
8
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.12288
F
3.526341592
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
MA
BLAIR
12
141
11.75
9.05664
0
30
1
3.5
13
17
21
30
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.388586
F
16.55822821
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
RD
CARR
10
32
3.2
2.8982753
0
9
0
1
3
5
7.5
9
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.237369
F
5.197767678
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
MA
CARR
10
47
4.7
4.398232
0
13
0.5
1
3.5
9
11
13
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.56517
F
4.679822562
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
RD
CHAPMAN
9
28
3.111111111
3.6893239
0
10
0
0
1
6
10
10
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.308447
F
4.738508821
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
LA
CHAPMAN
9
25
2.777777778
2.538591
0
8
0
1
3
3
8
8
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.672293
F
3.193839303
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
MA
CHAPMAN
9
47
5.222222222
6.0781942
0
17
0
1
2
8
17
17
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.674799
F
5.173015929
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
RD
CRAWFORD
13
32
2.461538462
2.6961511
0
9
0
1
2
3
7
9
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.075822
F
4.004065578
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
MA
CRAWFORD
13
129
9.923076923
7.331002
1
20
1
2
9
17
19
20
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.316004
F
14.15098834
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
MA
MUKONO
10
53
5.3
5.4782398
0
15
0
0
4.5
10
12.5
15
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.56517
F
5.567967465
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
RD
NUNN
11
56
5.090909091
5.7698275
0
15
0
0
2
12
12
15
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.176218
F
9.979282261
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
MA
NUNN
11
82
7.454545455
9.0372965
0
27
0
0
2
14
18
27
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.470853
F
9.18464465
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
RD
SAWYER
11
48
4.363636364
5.162804
0
16
0
0
1
8
8
16
0.92335697
1.3850903
2.176218
F
8.23781398
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
MA
SAWYER
11
49
4.454545455
4.0832251
0
12
0
1
4
9
9
12
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.470853
F
4.527173489
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
RD
SMITH
18
51
2.833333333
3.6014703
0
14
0
0
2
4
9
14
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.902764
F
5.850408204
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
TURNER MIDDLE
8
MA
SMITH
18
75
4.166666667
4.780475
0
17
0
0
2.5
8
10
17
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.049084
F
5.219466222
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
6
RD
MCCLAIN MELVIN
23
54
2.347826087
1 8975749
0
6
0
1
2
4
6
6
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.634172
F
5.627242992
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
6
LA
MCCLAIN MELVIN
23
102
4.434782609
2.776952
0
10
1
2
4
7
8
8
0.96245521
1.5489992
1.931421
F
10.75061714
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
6
MA
MCCLAIN MELVIN
23
97
4.217391304
2.7953943
0
12
1
2
4
6
7
9
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.654354
F
6.819856351
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
6
RD
WILLIAMS WANDA
20
47
2.35
1.7851729
0
6
0
0.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.693156
F
5.254894018
SystemName
School Nairn
Grade
Content
TeacherName
N students
# WTR
Mean classro
Std classrc
Win
Max
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
Mean state
Std state
crit_3SD
flag_3SD
Flag_Z
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
s
LA
WILLIAMS WANDA
20
74
3.7
2.8672378
0
8
0.5
1
3
6.5
8
8
0.96245521
1.5489992
2.001555
F
7.903601626
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
6
MA
WILLIAMS WANDA
20
82
4.1
5.0979872
0
16
0
1
2
6
14.5
16
1.426791613
1.9623941
2.743206
F
6.092023641
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
8
RD
CLYNE CHRISTINE
17
57
3.352941176
3.5696844
0
11
0
1
2
6
10
11
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.931158
F
7.232331774
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
8
LA
CLYNE CHRISTINE
17
54
3.176470588
3.6782349
0
16
0
1
3
4
5
16
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.227593
F
5.396425864
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
8
MA
CLYNE CHRISTINE
17
116
6.823529412
3.728862
0
13
1
5
7
9
12
13
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.092879
F
10.20015131
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
UNIVERSITY CO
8
RD
ELKO SHAWN
18
52
2.888888889
3.9539837
0
16
0
1
1.5
2
9
16
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.902764
F
6.020579251
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
6
RD
C LONG
20
35
1.75
2.0742786
0
8
0
1
1
2
4.5
7.5
0.819264393
1.3027204
1.693156
F
3.195141572
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
6
LA
R PATTERSON
25
52
2.08
2.3965253
0
7
0
0
1
4
6
7
0.96245521
1.5489992
1.891855
F
3.607312387
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
RD
A BOLLES
21
45
2.142857143
2.2200386
0
8
0
0
2
3
4
7
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.830111
F
4.034720341
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
LA
A BOLLES
21
49
2.333333333
2.4358435
0
10
0
1
2
3
5
6
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.108492
F
3.631124402
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
RD
A MICACCHIONE
18
42
2.333333333
3.7885276
0
16
0
0
1
3
5
16
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.902764
F
4.318868779
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
LA
A MICACCHIONE
18
41
2.277777778
2.696524
0
8
0
0
1
5
6
8
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.194125
F
3.217392594
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
LA
D JOHNSON
23
57
2.47826087
3.7400725
0
13
0
0
1
2
9
12
1.039726981
1.6325657
2.060967
F
4.225842986
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
RD
F RUFFIN
21
39
1.857142857
3.054271
0
13
0
0
1
2
5
6
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.830111
F
3.089433685
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
MA
F RUFFIN
21
65
3.095238095
3.1607715
0
14
0
1
3
4
6
7
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.937027
F
3.339374578
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
RD
H CAULE
19
39
2.052631579
2.0942695
0
7
0
0
2
4
5
7
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.876641
F
3.553843411
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
RD
1 HADLEY
24
47
1.958333333
1.1601786
0
5
0
1
2
3
3
3
0.92335697
1.3850903
1.771548
F
3.660648055
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
MA
1 HADLEY
24
96
4
2.8130132
0
10
1
2
3.5
5
9
10
1.538473622
2.1363255
2.8467
F
5.644723744
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOO
YOUNG MIDDLE
8
MA
T CRAVENS
16
55
3.4375
3.305929
0
10
0
1
2.5
6
9
10
1.538473622
2.1363255
3.140718
F
3.555687343
GREGORY J. CIZEK
HOME ADDRESS:
OFFICE ADDRESS:
111 Middlebrook Ct.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Telephone: (919) 408-0181
112Peabody Hall
School of Education, CB 3500
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3500
Telephone: (919)843-7876
Fax: (919)962-1533
Email: cizek@unc.edu
562
EDUCATION
Ph.D. 1991 - Michigan State University; East Lansing, Ml
Major: Measurement, Evaluation, and Research Design
Emphasis Areas: Educational Measurement, Quantitative
Research Methods, Educational Policy
M.A. 1983 - Michigan State University; East Lansing, Ml
Major: Curriculum and Instruction
Emphasis Areas: Curriculum, Learning Theory
B.A. 1979 - Michigan State University; East Lansing, Ml
Major: Elementary Education
Emphasis Areas: Social Studies major, Math/Science
minor
A. A. 1977 - Northwestern Michigan College; Traverse City, Ml
Major: Journalism
CERTIFICATES AWARDED
1979 - Michigan Elementary Provisional Teaching Certificate (K-9)
1983 - Michigan Continuing Elementary Teaching Certificate (K-9)
1987- Iowa Professional Elementary Certificate
1988 - Iowa Elementary Principal Certificate
1992 - Ohio Elementary Teacher Certificate (K-9)
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES
Professor of Educational Measurement and Evaluation (tenured) - School of Education,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2002-present).
Associate Professor of Educational Measurement and Evaluation (tenured) - School of
Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1999-2001).
Associate Professor of Educational Research and Measurement (tenured) - College of
Education, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH (1995-1999).
Assistant Professor of Educational Research and Measurement - College of Education,
University of Toledo, Toledo, OH (1991-1995). Taught graduate courses in testing,
psychometric theory, statistics, and research design; provided research and measurement
consultation to other faculty; advised graduate students; served on departmental and
college-level committees; conducted research in areas of specialization and developed
service relationships with local school districts
Program Manager - American College Testing Program, Inc. (ACT); Iowa City, IA (1987-
1991). Provided measurement expertise and program management for medical and allied
health licensure and certification programs. Responsibilities included test development,
client consultation, statistical analyses of test results, supervision of item writing, equating
examination forms, conducting client meetings, preparing and delivering instructional
seminars to health professions groups, conducting passing score studies, scheduling,
proposal writing, budget monitoring, and consultation with other ACT departments
2
563
Test Development Consultant - Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP);
Lansing, Ml (1985-1986). Assisted in development of objectives-based, state-wide, every-
pupil testing in Michigan State Board of Education approved subjects. Responsibilities
included: participation in Reading and Career Development test development projects;
supervision of item writing teams; item editing; psychometric consultation; participation in
scoring, formatting, and reporting decisions; composing Requests for Proposals and
evaluation of responses
Educational Policy Researcher - Michigan Senate Policy and Programs Office; Lansing, Ml
(1985). Performed research, analyses, policy option development and recommendations on
pending/proposed legislation on education issues (emphases on student testing, dropout
prevention, liability insurance, teacher shortages, home schooling, and teacher competency
testing)
Statistics Instructor - Michigan State University; East Lansing, Ml (1987, 1988, 1991,
1994). Taught graduate-level courses in statistics and educational research methods
on the MSU campus, in Thailand, in Brazil, and in the Philippines.
Educational Psychology Instructor - Michigan State University; East Lansing, Ml
(1984-1987). Taught undergraduate educational psychology course.
Elementary and Middle School Teacher - Traverse City, Ml (1979-1984). Taught grades 2,
4, 4/5, and 6/7. Taught all subjects in grades 2 and 4; computer science and physical
education for grades 6 and 7.
COMMITTEE WORK, PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS, SERVICE, AND HONORS
* Vice-President (2011-2012), President-elect, National Council on Measurement in
Education
* Member, American Educational Research Association, 1986-present
* Member, National Council for Measurement in Education, 1986-present
* Member, North Carolina Association for Research in Education, 2000-2002
* Secretary, Professional Licensure and Certification-SIG, 1999-2002
* Secretary, AERA Division D (Measurement and Research Methodology) 2004-2006
* Member, program participant, Classroom Assessment-SIG (AERA), 1995-present
* Member, program participant, Families as Educators-SIG (AERA), 1987-1992; program
committee 1988, 1990-1991
* Proposal Reviewer, NCME, AERA Divisions D, H, I, J, and various Special Interest
Groups, 1991 -present
* Manuscript Reviewer, American Educational Research Journal, 1994-1997
* Manuscript Reviewer, Applied Measurement in Education, 1992-present
* Manuscript Reviewer, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1 999
* Manuscript Reviewer, Educational Assessment, 1997-present
* Manuscript Reviewer, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1993
* Manuscript Reviewer, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 1991 -present
3
564
Committee Work, Professional Memberships, Service, and Honors (cont=d)
* Manuscript Reviewer, Educational Policy, 1990, 1993
* Manuscript Reviewer, Educational Researcher, 1994-present
* Manuscript Reviewer, Journal of Educational Measurement, 1992-present
* Manuscript Reviewer, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1992-1995
* Manuscript Reviewer, Review of Educational Research, 1998
* Manuscript Reviewer, Applied Psychological Measurement, 2003-present
* Member, Chair, AERA E. F. Lindquist Award Committee, 2008-2010
* Member, Chair, AERA Palmer O. Johnson Award Committee, 2006-2008
* Member, AERA Outreach and Professional Liaison Committee, 2001-2004
* Member, AERA Review of Research Award Committee, 1991-1993
* Member, AERA Publications Committee, 1992-1995
* Member, NCME Nominations Committee, 2001-2002
* Member, NCME Standards and Test Use Committee, 1995-1999
* Member, NCME Career Award Committee, 1999-2000
* Chair, NCME Standards and Test Use Committee, 2008-present
* Co-Chair, Joint Committee on Testing Practices, 2003-2006
* Editorial Board, Journal of Educational Measurement, 2003-2008
* Editorial Board, Educational Researcher, 2007-2009
* Editorial Board, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2003-2008
* Editorial Board, Applied Measurement in Education, 2001 -present
* Editorial Board, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2004-present
* Editorial Board, Home School Researcher, 1990-present
* Editorial Board, NCME Newsletter, 1999-2003
* Editor, special issue on vertically moderated standard setting, Applied Measurement in
Education, 2005
* Member, Smarter/Balanced Assessment Consortium Technical Advisory Panel, 2010-
* Member, National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), 2007-2009
* Member, United States Department of Education, Advisory Council on Education
Statistics, 2001-2003
* Member, United States Department of Education, National Technical Advisory Council,
2008-2009
* Member, National Advisory Committee, Buros Institute of Mental Measurement, 2004-
present
* Contributor, Standards for Educational Evaluation of Students (Joint Committee on
Standards for Educational Evaluation)
* Member, NCME Ad-Hoc Committee on ITEMS publication, 2000-2002.
* Elected Member, Vice-President, Sylvania (OH) Public Schools Board of Education, 1997-
1999
* Advisory Board, National Home Education Research Institute, 1990-present
* Member, North American Business Research Advisory Board, University of Toledo, 1996-
1999
* Awardee, Buros Institute for Mental Measurement, Distinguished Reviewer Award, 2005
* Awardee, AERA Division D award for Significant Contribution to Educational Measurement
and Research Methodology, 2006
* Awardee, NCME Award for Outstanding Dissemination of Educational Measurement
4
565
Concepts, 2007
5
566
BOOKS, BOOK CHAPTERS, and MONOGRAPHS
Cizek, G. J. (Ed.) (in preparation). Setting performance standards: Foundations, methods, and
innovations. New York: Routledge.
Cizek, G. J., & Natriello, G. (Eds.), (in preparation). Handbook of teacher evaluation. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Cizek, G. J., & Rosenberg, S. L. (201 1). Psychometric methods and high stakes assessment: Contexts
and methods for promoting ethics in testing. In A. T. Panter & S. Sterba (Eds.), Handbook of ethics in
quantitative methodology (pp. 211-240). New York: Routledge.
Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S. L, & Koons, H. K. (in press). Finding validity evidence: An analysis using
Mental Measurements Yearbook. In J. A. Bovaird, K. F. Geisinger, & C. W. Buckendahl (Eds.), High
stakes testing in education: Science and practice in K-12 settings. Washington, DC: APA Books.
Andrade, H., &Cizek, G. J. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Taylor and
Francis.
Cizek, G. J. (2010). An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics, and challenges.
In H. Andrade&G. Cizek, (Eds.) Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 3-17). New York: Taylor and
Francis.
Cizek, G. J. (2007). Formative classroom assessment and large-scale assessment: Implications for
future research and development. In J. A. McMillan (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment (pp. 99-
115). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. (2007). Standard setting: A practitioner=s guide to establishing and
evaluating performance standards on tests. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cizek, G. J. (2006). Standard setting. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test
development (pp. 225-258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cizek, G. J. (2006). Detecting and dealing with academic dishonesty. In W. Buskist & S. F. Davis
(eds.), Handbook of the teaching of psychology (pp. 238-244). Boston: Blackwell.
Cizek, G. J. (2005). Personal and systemic influences on integrity in testing. In J. 0=Reilly (ed.),
Current guidance for integrity in testing: 2005 Proceedings of the National Association of Test Directors
(pp. 1-32). Mesa, AZ: NATD.
Cizek, G. J., & Burg, S. S. (2005). Addressing test anxiety in a high-stakes environment. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Cizek, G. J. (2005). High-stakes testing: Contexts, characteristics, critiques, and consequences. In R.
Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing (pp. 23-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cizek, G. J. (2004). Achievement tests. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology
(pp. 41-46). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Cizek, G. J. (2004). Cheating in academics. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied
psychology (pp. 307-311). San Diego, CA: Academic.
6
567
Books, Book Chapters, and Monographs (continued)
Cizek, G.J. (2003). Detecting and preventing classroom cheating: Promoting integrity in schools.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Cizek, G. J. (2003). Setting performance standards: Selected-response formats. In R. Fernandez-
Ballesteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment (pp. 690-695) London: Sage.
Cizek, G. J. (2003). Educational testing integrity. In J. E. Wall & G. R. Walz (Eds). Measuring up:
Assessment issues for teachers, counselors, and administrators (pp. 363-386). Greensboro, NC: ERIC
Counseling and Student Services Clearinghouse.
Cizek, G. J., & Page, B. A. (2003). The concept of reliability in the context of automated essay scoring.
In M. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 125-
146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bergin, D. A., & Cizek, G. J. (2001). Alfred Binet. In J. A. Palmer (ed.), 100 great thinkers on education
(pp. 160-164). London, Routledge.
Cizek, G. J. (Ed.) (2001). Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cizek, G. J. (2001). Conjectures on the rise and call of standard setting: An introduction to context and
practice. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives
(pp. 3-17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mehrens, W. A., & Cizek, G. J. (2001). Standard setting and the public good: Benefits accrued and
anticipated. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives
(pp. 477-485). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Camilli, G. A., Cizek, G. J., & Lugg, C. A. (2001). Psychometric theory and the validation of
performance standards: History and future perspectives. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance
standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 445-475). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cizek, G. J. (2001). An overview of issues concerning cheating on large-scale tests. In J. O'Reilly
(Ed.), 2001 Proceedings of the National Association of Test Directors (pp. 1-30). Mesa, AZ: NATD.
Cizek, G. J. (1 999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cizek, G. J., Kenney, P. A., Kolen, M. J., Peters, C. & van der Linden, W. J. (1999). An investigation
of the feasibility of linking scores on the proposed Voluntary National Tests and the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
Cizek, G. J. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of educational policy. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Cizek, G. J., & Ramaswamy, V. (1999). American educational policy: Constructing crises and
crafting solutions. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy, (pp. 497-519). San Diego,
CA: Academic.
Cizek, G. J. (1999). The tale wagging the dog: Narrative and neo-pragmatism in teacher education
7
568
and research. In J. Raths & A. McAninch (Eds.). Advances in teacher education, Vol. 5, What
counts as knowledge in teacher education? (pp. 47-68). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Books, Book Chapters, and Monographs (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (1998). Filling in the blanks: Putting standardized tests to the test. Washington, DC:
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Cizek, G. J. (1997). Learning, achievement, and assessment: Constructs at a crossroads. In G. D.
Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment (pp. 1-
33). New York: Academic.
8
569
JOURNAL ARTICLES and REVIEWS
Cizek, G. J., Bowen, D., & Church, K. (2010). Sources of validity evidence in educational and
psychological tests: A follow-up study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 732-743.
Cizek, G. J. (2010). Review of Measures of Academic Progress. In R. A. Spies, J. F. Carlson & K.
F. Geisinger (Eds.), Eighteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 327-332). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Cizek, G. J. (2009). The past of test-based educational accountability. [Review of The future of test-
based educational accountability]. Educational Researcher, 38, 467-468.
Cizek, G. J. (2009). Response to "Accountability testing: Getting situated." Educational Researcher,
38, 471-472.
Cizek, G. J. (2009). Reliability and validity of information about student achievement: Comparing
the contexts of large-scale and classroom testing. Theory Into Practice, 48, 63-71.
Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S., & Koons, H. (2008). Sources of validity evidence for educational and
psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 397-412.
Cizek, G. J. (2008). Assessing educational measurement: Ovations, omissions, opportunities.
[Review of Educational Measurment, 4th edition]. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 96-100.
Cizek, G. J. (2007). Review of Mechanical Technician B Examination. In K. F. Geisinger, R. A.
Spies, J. F. Carlson, & B. S. Plake (Eds.), Seventeenth mental measurements yearbook, (pp. 518-
522). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Burke, J. N., & Cizek, G. J. (2006). Effects of composition mode and self-perceived computer skills
on essay scores of sixth graders. Assessing Writing, 11, 148-166.
Cizek, G. J., Crocker, L, Frisbie, D. A., Mehrens, W. A., & Stiggins, R. J. (2006). A tribute to Robert
L. Ebel: Scholar, teacher, mentor, and statesman. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
25(1), 23-32.
Cizek, G. J. (2005). Review of TerraNova, Second Edition. In R. A. Spies & B. S. Plake (Eds.),
Sixteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1025-1030). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurement.
Cizek, G. J. (2005). Adapting testing technology to serve accountability aims: The case of vertically-
moderated standard setting. Applied Measurement in Education, 78(1), 1-10.
Cizek, G. J., Bunch, M. B., & Koons, H. (2004). Setting performance standards: Contemporary
methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(4), 31-50.
Cizek, G. J. (2003). Review of Woodcock-Johnson III. In J. C. Impara, B. S. Plake, and R. A. Spies
(Eds.), Fifteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 1019-1024). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of
Mental Measurement.
Cizek, G. J. (2003). E. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(\), 40-44.
Cizek, G. J., Hirsch, T., Trent, R., & Crandell, J. (2002). A preliminary investigation of pupil
9
570
proficiency testing and state education reform initiatives. Educational Assessment, 7(4), 283-302.
10
571
Articles and Reviews (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (2001). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19-27.
Cizek, G. J. (2001). Review of Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills-Revised. In B. S.
Plake& J. C. Impara (Eds.), Fourteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 172-176). Lincoln,
NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
Cizek, G. J. (2001). Review of Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning-Third
Edition. In B. S. Plake & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Fourteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 394-
398). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
Cizek, G. J. (2001). Detecting and preventing cheating on credentialing examinations. CLEAR
Exam Review, 12, 14-21.
Cizek, G. J. (2001). Cheating to the test. Education Matters Journal, 7(1), 40-47.
Cizek, G. J. (2000). Review of Contemporary assessment for educators [book review]. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 37, 179-185.
Cizek, G. J. (2000). Pockets of resistance in the assessment revolution. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 19(2), 16-23, 33.
Cizek, G. J., & Fitzgerald, S. M. (1999). An introduction to logistic regression. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 31, 223-245
Cizek, G. J., & Robinson, K. L, & O'Day, D. M. (1998). Nonfunctioning options: A closer look.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(4), 605-61 1 .
Cizek, G. J. (1998). Review of Office Skills Series. In J. C. Impara & B. S. Plake (Eds.), Thirteenth
mental measurements yearbook (pp. 706-708). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
Cizek, G. J. (1998). Review of Team Development Survey. In J. C. Impara & B. S. Plake (Eds.),
Thirteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1002-1003). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
Cizek, G. J., Rachor, R. E., & Fitzgerald, S. F. (1996). Teachers' assessment practices:
Preparation, isolation, and the kitchen sink. Educational Assessment, 3(2), 159-179.
Cizek, G. J. (1996). Setting passing scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(2),
20-31.
Cizek, G. J. (1996). Standard-setting guidelines. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
75(1), 13-21, 12.
Cizek, G. J. (1996). The hegemony of the narrative: Reflections on the contours of social science
research. Review of Higher Education, 19(2), 227-236.
Cizek, G. J. (1995). Review of Professional Employment Test. In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley
(Eds.), Twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 818-820). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of
11
572
Mental Measurements.
12
573
Articles and Reviews (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (1995). Review of Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (Revised). In J. J.
Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 374-376). Lincoln, NE:
Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Cizek, G. J., & Ray, B. D. (1995). An analysis of home education research and researchers. Home
School Researcher, 11(2), 1-9.
Cizek, G. J., Webb, L. C. & Kalohn, J. (1995). The use of cognitive taxonomies in licensure and
certification test development: Reasonable or customary? Evaluation & the Health Professions,
78(1), 77-91.
Cizek, G. J. (1995). Crunchy granola and the hegemony of the narrative. Educational Researcher,
24(2), 26-28.
Cizek, G. J. (1995). On the limited presence of African-American teachers: An assessment of
research, synthesis, and policy implications. Review of Educational Research, 65(1), 78-92.
Cizek, G. J. & O'Day, D. (1994). Further investigation of non-functioning options in a multiple choice
examination. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(4), 861-872.
Cizek, G. J. (1994). In defense of the test. American Psychologist, 49(6), 525-526.
Cizek, G. J. (1994). The effect of altering the position of options in a multiple-choice examination.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(1), 8-20.
Cizek, G. J. (1994). Religious education in home schools: Goals/outcomes mismatch? Religious
Education, 89(1), 43-51.
Cizek, G. J. & Rachor, R. E. (1994). The real testing bias: The role of values in educational
assessment. NASSP Bulletin, 78(560), 83-93.
Cizek, G. J. (1993). Alternative assessment: Yes, but why? Educational Horizons, 72(\), 36-40.
Cizek, G. J. (1993). The mismeasure of home schooling effectiveness. Home School Researcher,
9(3), 1-4.
Cizek, G. J. (1993). Testing for learning: A remonstrance [book review]. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 12(4), 40-41 .
Cizek, G. J. (1993). Reconsidering standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement,
30(2), 93-106.
Cizek, G. J. (1993). Some thoughts on educational testing: Measurement policy issues into the next
millennium. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 72(3), 10-16, 22.
Cizek, G. J. (1993). Rethinking psychometricians' beliefs about learning. Educational Researcher,
22(4), 4-9.
Cizek, G. J. (1993). The place of psychometricians' beliefs in educational reform: A rejoinder to
Shepard. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 14-15.
13
574
Articles and Reviews (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (1992). Alternative assessments: Promises and problems for home-based education
policy. Home School Researcher, 7(4), 13-21.
Cizek, G. J. (1992). Review of Test of Legible Handwriting. In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.),
Eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 966-968). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
Cizek, G. J. (1992). Review of VITAL Checklist and Curriculum Guide. In J. J. Kramer and J. C.
Conoley (Eds.), Eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1003-1004). Lincoln, NE: Buros
Institute of Mental Measurements.
Cizek, G. J. & Bridges, J. A. (1991). Task analysis: Foundation for a valid examination. Journal of
Nuclear Medicine Technology, 19(4), 245-246.
Cizek, G. J. (1991). Confusion effusion: A rejoinder to Wiggins. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2), 150-153.
Cizek, G. J. (1991). Innovation or enervation: Performance assessment in perspective. Phi Delta
Kappan, 72(9), 695-699. Reprinted in K. M. Cauley, F. Under, & J. H. McMillan (Eds.) (1992),
Annual editions in educational psychology, 92-93 (pp. 232-236), Guilford, CT: Dushkin; In A. E.
Woolfolk (Ed.) (1993), Readings and cases in educational psychology (pp. 238-243), Boston: Allyn
and Bacon; In K. M. Cauley, F. Under, & J. H. McMillan (Eds.) (1993), Annual editions in
educational psychology, 92-93 (pp. 232-236), Guilford, CT: Dushkin; In H. F. Clarizio, W. A.
Mehrens, &W. G. Hapkiewicz (Eds.) (1994), Contemporary issues in educational psychology, 6th
ed (pp. 256-261), New York: McGraw-Hill; In W. C. Martin & G. Franklin (Eds.), Analyzing
multicultural teaching and learning styles (pp. 236-245), Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Cizek, G. J. (1990). The case against the SAT: A review and comment [Review of The Case
Against the SAT]. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(3), 701-707.
Cizek, G. J. (1990). Home education alternatives vs. accountability: A tractable problem?
Educational Policy, 4(2), 109-125.
Cizek, G. J. (1989). Norms, standards, and nonsense: Testing policy gone bad. Home School
Researcher, 5(4), 1-6.
Cizek, G. J. (1988). Applying standardized testing to home-based educational programs:
Reasonable or customary? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7(3), 12-19.
14
575
OTHER PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS
Cizek, G. J. (2010, March). Error of measurement: Validity and the place of consequences. NCME
Newsletter, 78(1). Available at http://www.ncme.org/pubs/pdf/vol 18 num 1.pdf
Cizek, G. J. (2010, 30 March). Eight questions for Gregory Cizek: On the role of testing in
America's education system. The Economist. Available on-line at
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/testing and assessment
Cizek, G. J., & Plake, B. S. (2009). Setting performance standards for the Defense Language
Proficiency Tests: Final Report. Available from the Defense Language Institute, Monterey, CA.
Plake, B. S., Impara, J. C, Cizek, G. J., & Sireci, S. G. (2008, June). Advanced Placement
examinations standard-setting pilot studies: Final report. Available from The College Board, New
York.
Cizek, G. J. (2007). Fostering healthy views about testing. The Score [APA Division 5 Newsletter],
29(2), 1,12.
Linn, R. L, Cizek, G. J., Kolen, M. J., & Swaminathan, H. (2007). Recommendations to the
Delaware Department of Education on the Next Generation of Statewide Assessment System.
Available from Delaware Department of Education, Dover, DE.
Cizek, G. J. (2006, January). Evaluation of College Board Advanced Placement best practices
study methodology. Available from The College Board, New York, NY.
Cizek, G. J. (2005. July). Final report: Review and recommendations related to test security. Report
prepared for the Texas Education Agency, Austin, TX. Available from
www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/admin/texasreport.pdf
Cizek, G. J., Engelhard, G. Jr., & Moody, M. (2005, January). Final report: Review of Delaware
Student Testing Program assessments and performance standards. Available from Office of The
Governor, Dover, DE.
Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. (2003). National physical therapy examination
(NPTE) commission report. Alexandria, VA: Author.
New York State Education Department. (2003). Final report to the New York State Board of
Regents and the New York State Commissioner of Education, Independent Panel on Math A.
Albany, NY: Author.
Cizek, G. J. (2003, September 21). High-stakes testing must pass the integrity test. Memphis
Commercial Appeal, p. A-7.
Cizek, G. J. (2002/2003). When educators cheat. NAESP Streamlined Seminar, 27(2), 1-3.
[Reprinted as Cizek, G. J. (2003). When teachers cheat. Education Digest, 68(6), 28-31.]
Cizek, G.J. (2002). A report to the Dayton area chamber of commerce on pupil achievement in
Dayton area charter schools, 2001-2002 academic year. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.
Cizek, G. J. (2000, December 6). School politics 101: It's not really about the children. Education
Week, pp. 35-36.
15
576
Other Publications and Reports (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (2000, January/February). Academic Notebook: Standards and Testing, Michigan
Learning, 11(2), 7-8.
Cizek, G. J. (2000, January/February). A user-friendly guided to standards and testing terms,
Michigan Learning, 11(2), 9-10.
Cizek, G. J. (1999, December 8). How cartoons and calculators resolved the class-size debate.
Education Week, pp. 26, 30.
Cizek, G. J. (1999). Give us this day our daily dread: Manufacturing crises in American education.
Phi Delta Kappan, 80(10), 737-743.
Cizek, G. J. (1998). The assessment revolution's unfinished business. Kappa Delta Pi Record,
34(4), 138-143.
Cizek, G. J. (1996). Grades: The final frontier in assessment reform. NASSP Bulletin, 80(584),
103-110.
Donmoyer, R., Eisner, E., Gardner, H., Stotsky, S., Wasley, P., Tillman, L, Cizek, G., &Gough, N.
(1996). Viewpoints: Should novels count as dissertations in education? Research in the Teaching
of English, 30(4), 403-427.
Cizek, G. J. (1996, April 17). There's no such thing as grade inflation. Education Week, 15(30), 32,
22.
Cizek, G. J. (1996). Voices in education. Midwestern Educational Researcher, 9(2), 43.
Cizek, G. J. (1996). Voices in education. Midwestern Educational Researcher, 9(1), 34-35.
Cizek, G. J. (1995). The big picture in assessment and who ought to have it. Phi Delta Kappan,
77(3), 246-249.
Cizek, G. J. (1995, February). An evaluation of "An Integrated Curricular Approach to Teaching
about the Great Lakes Region, 1993-1994." Available from Lucas County Office of Education,
Toledo, OH.
Cizek, G. J. (1994, December). An evaluation of nature education/ environmental workshops,
1993-1994. Available from Lourdes College, Sylvania, OH.
Cizek, G. J. (1994). Voices in education. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 7(4), 35.
Cizek, G. J. (1994, September 21). SAT scores recentered: Baby boomers get a break. Education
Week, 14(3), pp. 40, 34.
Cizek, G. J. (1994, December 7). S.A.T. recentering redux. [Response] Education Week, 74(14),
38.
Cizek, G. J. (1993, November 10). On the disappearance of standards. Education Week, 73(10),
pp. 32, 24.
16
577
\7
578
Other Publications and Reports (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (1 993, March). Evaluation of General Accounting Office report on national assessment
of educational progress achievement levels. Available from National Assessment Governing
Board, Washington, DC.
Cizek, G. J. (1993, May). Evaluation of Ohio ninth-grade proficiency test technical characteristics.
Columbus, OH: Ohio Legislative Office of Education Oversight.
Cizek, G. J. (1993, September). Evaluation and comment on National Academy of Education report
on National Assessment of Educational Progress achievement levels setting. Available from
National Assessment Governing Board, Washington, DC.
Cizek, G. J. and others (1993, September). Setting achievement levels on the 1992 National
Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics, reading, and writing: A technical report on
reliability and validity. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
Cizek, G. J., Jurs, S. G. & Maynard, J. (1993, April). Report on content analysis of responses to
"Teacher Education and Certification Discussion Guide." Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of
Education, Standards Revision Committee for Teacher Education.
Cizek, G. J. (1992). Evaluation of the Davenport (IA) Community School District Performance
Assessment Program. Toledo, OH: Author.
Cizek, G. J. & Butman, A. M. (1992). Essentials for teaching EMTs: An instructor's guide to better
teaching. In J. D. Heckman (Ed.), Emergency care and transportation of the sick and injured, 5th
ed., (pp. 247-271). Park Ridge, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Cizek, G. J. (Speaker). (1992). Conversations about authentic assessment (Instructional Cassette;
Project RP91 002002). Charleston, WV: Appalachian Educational Laboratory.
Cizek, G. J. (1992, April 8). From a 'Card-carrying Psychometrician'. Education Week, 11(29), p.
27.
Cizek, G. J. (1992). Standardized tests should not be eliminated from schools. In C. P. Cozic (Ed.),
Education in America: Opposing viewpoints (pp. 51-54). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven.
Cizek, G. J. & Hartnett, S. (1991). Nuclear Medicine Technology ready for task analysis
revalidation. NMTCB News, 4(1), pp. 2, 4.
Cizek, G. J. (1991). Reasoning about testing. Educational Digest, 56(5), 56-58. Reprinted in (1996)
Educated in the USA, J. Nelson, C. Hass, & S. Greene (Eds.), Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Cizek, G. J., Webb, L. C, & White, A. S. (1990). Criterion-referenced standard setting: A User's
Guide. Iowa City, IA: ACT Publications.
Cizek, G. J. (1990, April 4). The 'sloppy' logic of test abolitionists. Education Week, p. 64.
Reprinted in (1996) Issues in literacy, J. Nelson (Ed.), Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Cizek, G. J. (1990). Sloppy reasoning about testing. California School Boards Journal, 49(2), 9-11.
Cizek, G. J. (1990). Using standardized tests to evaluate educational quality. The Teaching Home,
8(1), 35-36.
18
579
19
580
Other Publications and Reports (continued)
Beechick, R., Cizek, G. J., & Bumcrot, C. (1990). Glossary of testing terms. The Teaching Home,
8(1), 30.
Beechick, R., Karman, D., & Cizek, G. (1990). Test-taking tips. The Teaching Home, 8(1), 31.
Cizek, G. J. (1989). Planning and presenting a lesson. The Teaching Home, 7(5), 25-28.
Cizek, G. J. (1989). GSCORE/EQANAL User's Manual. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing
Program.
Numerous proposals, technical reports, evaluation reports, and research reports.
20
581
CONFERENCE PAPERS AND PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS
Cizek, G. J. (2010, November). Toward a reconceptualization of validity theory: Validation of score
inferences and justification of test use. Invited presentation for inaugural distinguished lecture
series, College of Education, University of Texas — Austin.
Cizek, G. J. (2010, October). Translating standards into assessments: The opportunities and
challenges of a common core. Invited paper presentation to a symposium on Common Core
Assessments. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Cizek, G. J. (2010, October). Reconceptualizing validity and the place of consequences. Invited
keynote address to the ASI Annual Research Conference, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Cizek, G. J., Church, K., & Bowen, D (2010, September). Sources of validity evidence for
educational and psychological tests: A follow-up study. Poster presented at the UNC School of
Education 125th anniversary research symposium, Chapel Hill, NC.
Cizek, G. J., Bowen, D., & Church, K. (2010, May). Sources of validity evidence for educational
and psychological tests: A follow-up study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Council on Measurement in Education, Denver, CO.
Cizek, G. J. (2009e, November). Error of measurement: Validity and the place of consequences.
Invited lecture, University of Minnesota, College of Education, Minneapolis, MN.
Cizek, G.J. (2009d, October). Error of measurement: Reconsidering validity theory and the place
of consequences. Invited address, National Institute of Testing and Evaluation, Jerusalem, Israel.
Cizek, G.J. (2009c, October). Fundamentals of psycho metrics. Invited presentation to the
Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, San Diego, CA.
Cizek, G.J. (2009b, October). Setting performance standards on licensure examinations. Invited
presentation to the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, San Deigo, CA.
Cizek, G. J. (2009a, April). Reliability and validity of information about student achievement:
Comparing large-scale and classroom testing contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Cizek, G. J. (2008, October a). Error of measurement: Reconsidering validity theory and the place
of consequences. Invited address, 12th annual William E. Coffman Invited Lecture, University of
Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Cizek, G. J. (2008, October b). An introduction to setting performance standards. Invited
presentation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Cizek, G. J. (2008, September). Test security: A primer and current issues. Keynote address for
the annual meeting of the National College Testing Association, Baltimore, MD.
Cizek, G. J. (2008, June). State assessment programs and the problem of cheating: How to fail.
Presentation at the National Conference on Student Assessment, Orlando, FL.
Cizek, G. J. (2008, March c). AERA, unaffiliated organizations, and remora: An introduction to
NCME. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY.
21
582
Conference Papers and Professional Presentations (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (2008, March b). Standard setting challenges in the context of augmented
achievement testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York, NY.
Cizek, G. J. (2008, March a). The future of educational measurement. Invited presentation at the
annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, NY.
Cizek, G. J. (2008, February). Reconsidering the place of consequences in validity theory and
practice. Invited presentation to MetaMetrics, Durham, NC.
Cizek, G. J. (2007f, October). Fundamentals of test item writing and analysis. Invited presentation
to the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC.
Cizek, G. J. (2007e, August). Introduction to modern validity theory and practice. Invited
presentation to the National Assessment Governing Board, McLean, VA.
Cizek, G. J. (2007d, May). Chronicling and questioning validity: Mental Measurements Yearbook
as a context for investigating sources of evidence for high-stakes tests. Paper presented at the
Invitational Conference of the Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, Lincoln, NE.
Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S., & Koons, H. (2007c, April). Sources of validity evidence for
educational and psychological tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Cizek, G. J. (2007b, March). Fundamentals of psychometrics. Invited presentation to the
Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, Milwaukee, Wl.
Cizek, G. J. (2007a, March). Setting performance standards on licensure examinations. Invited
presentation to the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, Milwaukee, Wl.
Cizek, G. J. (2006e, July). Possibly intended consequences of high-stakes testing. Keynote
address, annual meeting of the New York Schools Data Analysis Group, Saratoga Springs, NY.
Cizek, G. J. (2006f, July). Setting standards, including vertically-moderated standard setting.
Invited presentation at the annual meeting of the New York Schools Data Analysis Group,
Saratoga Springs, NY.
Cizek, G. J. (2006e, April). Test consequences, test validity, and testing policy. Symposium
presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Cizek, G. J. (2006d, April). Tricks of the trade: Decisions made, risks taken, and opportunities
seized by accomplished researchers throughout their careers. Inhibited presentation at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Cizek, G. J. (2006c, April). A systemic approach to test security. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
Cizek, G. J. (2006b, February). Enhancing test security: A comprehensive approach Invited
workshop, Association of Test Publishers annual meeting, Orlando, FL.
22
583
Conference Papers and Professional Presentations (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (2006a, January). Enhancing and monitoring Test Security: Individual and systemic
aspects. Invited presentation to the National Council on Education Statistics/Council of Chief State
School Officers Joint Conference, LaJolla, CA.
Cizek, G. J. (2005a, August). Cheating on tests: A systemic perspective, presentation at the 2nd
annual Lexile National Reading Conference, Durham, NC.
Cizek, G. J. (2005b, August). Testing myths. Keynote address, 2nd Annual Lexile National Reading
Conference, Durham, NC.
Cizek, G. J. (2005c, September). Psychomethcs of the National Physical Therapy Examination.
Invited presentation, annual meeting of the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, Austin,
TX.
Cizek, G. J. (2005d, April). Setting and reviewing the passing standard. Keynote address, annual
meeting Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, Austin, TX.
Cizek, G. J. (2005e, April). Testing myths. Invited presentation, annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, PQ, Canada.
Cizek, G. J. (2005f, April). Portrait of the artist as a young psychometrician. Presentation to the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, PQ, Canada.
Cizek, G. J. (2005g, April). Personal and systemic influences on integrity in testing. Paper
presented to the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal,
PQ, Canada.
Cizek, G. J. (2005h, April). A look the other way: From measurement practice to theory.
Presentation to the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education,
Montreal, PQ, Canada.
Cizek, G. J. (2005i, April). Formative classroom assessment and large-scale testing: The state of
the union. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, PQ, Canada.
Cizek, G. J. (2005j, April). High-stakes testing: Contexts, characteristics, critiques, and
consequences. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in
Education, Montreal, PQ, Canada.
Cizek, G. J. (2005k, February). Individual vs. systemic aspects of cheating: Test score corruption in
context. Invited address, 19th annual Texas Assessment Conference, Austin, TX.
Cizek, G. J. (2004a, November). High-stakes testing: Myths and consequences. Keynote address,
Florida Educational Research Association annual meeting, Tampa, FL.
Cizek, G. J. (2004b, November). Setting performance standards: Concepts and methods. Invited
presentation, Florida Educational Research Association annual meeting, Tampa, FL.
Cizek, G. J. (2004c, July). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Invited
presentation to the Council of Chief State School Officers annual curriculum and assessment
conference, Baltimore, MD.
23
584
Conference Papers and Professional Presentations (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (2004d, April). Protecting the integrity of computer-adaptive tests: Results of a legal
challenge. Presentation to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Diego, CA.
Cizek, G. J. (2004e, April). Robert Ebel: Educational statesman. Presentation to the annual
conference of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
Cizek, G. J. (2004f, February). Test cheating: Problems and solutions. Presentation to the annual
conference of the Association of Test Publishers, Palm Springs, CA.
Cizek, G. J. (2003, November). PhDs say the darndest things (about testing). Invited address to
the annual meeting of the Virginia Association of Test Directors, Richmond, VA.
Cizek, G. J. (2003a, October). Three critical issues in assessment. Invited Keynote Address to the
annual meeting of the Arizona Educational Research Organization, Phoenix, AZ.
Cizek, G. J. (2003b, October). Contemporary methods and issues in setting performance
standards. Invited workshop presentation for the annual meeting of the Arizona Educational
Research Organization, Phoenix, AZ.
Cizek, G. J. (2003a, February). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Invited
address to the Joint Meeting of the Texas Association of Collegiate Testing Personnel and the
Texas Annual Assessment Conference, Austin, TX.
Cizek, G. J. (2003b, February). Consequences of Testing: There=s the rub. Invited presentation to
the Joint Meeting of the Texas Association of Collegiate Testing Personnel and the Texas Annual
Assessment Conference, Austin, TX.
Cizek, G. J. (2002, November). High-stakes testing consequences: There=s the rub. Invited
plenary presentation to the Virginia Association of Test Directors, Richmond, VA.
Cizek, G. J. (2002a, May). Accountability for what? Rounding out the accountability picture.
Presentation at the Ohio Charter Schools Annual Conference, Columbus, OH.
Cizek, G. J., & Pinkerton, T. (2002b, May). The Dayton assessment project. Presentation at the
Ohio Charter Schools Annual Conference, Columbus, OH.
Cizek, G. J., & Pammer, M. (2002c, May). Choosing valid instruments for effective assessment.
Presentation at the Ohio Charter Schools Annual Conference, Columbus, OH.
Cizek, G. J. (2002a, April). Standard setting using the item mapping approach. Invited presentation
to the Texas State Board of Education, Austin, TX.
Cizek, G. J. (2002b, April). (Re)forming the triennial travesties. Presentation at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Cizek, G. J. (2002, February). Unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Invited
presentation to the Buffalo area Phi Delta Kappa chapter, Williamsville, NY.
24
585
Conference Papers and Professional Presentations (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (2001a, April). Testing accommodations: Raising a white flag or waving a checkered
one? Symposium presentation at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in
Education, Seattle, WA.
Cizek, G. J. (2001b, April). Disseminating stories in education: Power and the physicist's plea.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Seattle, WA.
Cizek, G. J. (2001c, April). An overview of issues concerning cheating on large-scale tests. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle,
WA.
Cizek, G. J. (2001 d, April). Unintended consequences of high-stakes pupil testing programs.
Invited presentation, Virginia Commonwealth University College of Education, Richmond, VA.
Cizek, G. J. (2001a, March). High-stakes testing and accountability systems: Unintended
consequences, unrecognized benefits. Invited presentation to the New York State Education
Department Conference on Validity in Testing, Albany, NY.
Cizek, G. J. (2001b, March). Accountability and assessment for charter school operators. Invited
presentation to the annual meeting of the New York Charter Schools Association, New York, NY.
Cizek, G. J. (2001c, March). Elements of an effective assessment component for charter schools.
Invited presentation to the New York Charter Schools Resource Center Conference, New York,
NY.
Cizek, G. J. (2001, January). Unanticipated consequences of high-stakes testing. Paper presented
at the annual North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Accountability Conference,
Greensboro, NC.
Cizek, G. J. (2000, November a). When the alarms should go off when test results are reported.
Presentation to the Education Writers Association, Cleveland, OH.
Cizek, G. J. (2000, November b). The problem of cheating on tests in education. Invited keynote
address to the Dutch Testing Society, Zuthphen, Netherlands.
Cizek, G. J. (2000, September). Cheating on credentialing examinations: Who, why, how,
detecting, and preventing. Presentation at the annual meeting of the National Council on
Licensure, Enforcement, and Regulation (CLEAR), Key Biscayne, FL.
Cizek, G. J., Trent, E. R., Crandell, J., Hirsch, T., & Keene, J. (2000, April). Research to inform
policy: An investigation of pupil proficiency testing requirements and state education reform
initiatives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA. (ED 443 873)
Cizek, G.J. (2000, April). Factors affecting linkage of the Voluntary National Tests and the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA. (ED 447 196)
Cizek, G.J. (2000, April). You do your work and you do my work: Bearing one another=s burdens
in classroom assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on
25
586
Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
Conference Papers and Professional Presentations (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (2000, February). Cheating on tests and its threat to school accountability programs.
Invited presentation to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction 2000 Accountability
Conference, Greensboro, NC.
Cizek, G. J. (1999, April). The role and uses of assessment in charter schools. Invited presentation
to the New York State Charter Schools Conference, New York, NY.
Cizek, G. J. (1999, April). (Re)Forming the AERA Annual Meeting. Address presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Cizek, G. J. & Husband, T. H. (1997, March). A Monte Carlo investigation of the contrasting groups
standard setting method. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Cizek, G. J. (1996a, June). Developing and evaluating tests for nurse educators. Invited
presentation, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, OH.
Cizek, G. J., & Fitzgerald, S. M. (1996b, April). A comparison of group and independent standard
setting^ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York. [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. TM025679]
Rachor, R. E., & Cizek, G. J. (1996c, April). Reliability of raw gain, residual gain, and estimated
true gain scores: A simulation study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
Cizek, G. J. (1996d, April). Statistical detection of answer copying: Getting a focus on the big
picture. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
York.
Cizek, G. J. (1996e, April). Comment on proposed revisions to the AERA/APA/NCME Standards
for Educational and Psychological Testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
Cizek, G. J. (1 996f, April). Yes, but is it research? Should a novel count as a dissertation in
education? Symposium presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.
Cizek, G. J. (1996g, April). Can we talk? An attempted conversation across research paradigms,
purposes and perspectives. Symposium presentation at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
Stiggins, R., & Cizek, G. J. (1996h, February). Assessment: The key to high quality student
learning. Invited presentation to the John P. Rusel Center for Educational Leadership, University of
Toledo, Toledo, OH.
Cizek, G. J. (1995, May). Future directions for the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). Invited paper prepared for the National Assessment Governing Board, Washington, DC.
26
587
Cizek, G. J. (1995, April). Standard setting as psychometric due process: Going further down an
uncertain road. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in
Education, San Francisco, CA (ED 384 614).
Conference Papers and Professional Presentations (continued)
Cizek, G. J., Rachor, R. E., & Fitzgerald, S. M. (1995, April). Further investigation of teachers'
grading practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA (ED 384 613).
Cizek, G. J. (1995, April). On the relevance of intelligence: Theory and practice in education.
Remarks presented at symposium presentation, annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Cizek, G. J. & Rachor, R. E. (1995, April). Nonfunctioning options in multiple-choice tests: A closer
look. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco, CA.
Cizek, G. J. (1995, May). Home school assessment: Obligations, alternatives, and interpretations.
Invited address to the annual meeting of Christian Home Educators of Ohio, Columbus, OH.
Cizek, G. J. (1995, January). Preparing good tests and using them well. Invited presentation, Davis
College Faculty In-Service, Toledo, OH.
Cizek, G. J. & Rachor, R. E. (1994, October a). Non-functioning options in multiple-choice tests:
Another look. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Rachor, R. E. & Cizek, G. J. (1994, October b). An empirical investigation of the reliability of gain
scores and modified gain scores. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Cizek, G. J. & Rachor, R. E. (1994, October c). Teachers' grading practices: Who's doing what,
and why? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Cizek, G. J. (1994, May). What is standard setting? Current conceptualizations and future issues.
Invited presentation, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
Cizek, G. J. (1994, April). Whatever happened to the measurement of intelligence? Symposium
presentation at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New
Orleans, LA.
Sun, A., & Cizek, G. J. (1994, April). Development of an instrument for measuring high school
student resistance to schooling. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Cizek, G. J. (1994, February). Issues in establishing standards of performance for a credentialing
program. Invited presentation to the PES Annual Invitational Conference on Licensure and
Certification, Seattle, WA.
Cizek, G. J. (1993, November). A critical look at the 1992 NAEP achievement levels setting
process. Invited presentation to the National Assessment Governing Board, San Francisco, CA.
27
588
Cizek, G. J. (1993, October). Setting levels: Those little devils. Invited presentation to the Council
of Chief State School Officers, Education Information Advisory Committee Meeting, Alexandria,
VA.
28
589
Conference Papers and Professional Presentations (continued)
Cizek, G. J. (1993, April). Home education research: On the right road? Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA (ED 360 331).
Cizek, G. J., Webb, L. C. & Kalohn, J. (1993, April). The use of cognitive taxonomies in licensure
and certification test development: Reasonable or customary? Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Cizek, G. J. (1993, April). Cheating on educational assessments: An introduction to frame
investigations. Introductory remarks, session chair, presented at the annual meetings of the
American Educational Research Association & National Council on Measurement in Education,
Atlanta, GA.
Cizek, G. J. (1993, January). Constructing and evaluating tests for nurse educators. Faculty
presentation, Mercy College of Nursing, Toledo, OH.
Cizek, G. J. (1992, September). Evaluating the quality of test items: The good, the bad, and the
ugly. Invited seminar for the University of Toledo Department of Health Promotion and Human
Performance, Toledo, OH.
Cizek, G. J. (1992, August). Utilizing testing data in regular and special education. Invited seminar
presentation for the Ottawa County (Ohio) schools Annual Administrators' Symposium, Avon Lake,
OH.
Cizek, G. J. (1992, March). Issues in educational testing. Invited address to the University of
Toledo Annual Conference on Testing, Toledo, OH.
Cizek, G. J. (1992, January). Performance assessment: Uses, abuses, excuses. Keynote address
presented to the annual meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association, Novi, Ml.
Cizek, G. J. (1992, January). Performance assessment: Questions and answers. Symposium
presentation at the annual meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association, Novi, Ml.
Cizek, G. J. (1991, April). The effect of altering the position of options in a multiple-choice
examination. Paper presented to the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 333 024).
29
590
BOOK/PUBLICATION PROPOSAL REVIEWS
Cizek, G. J. (2009). Equating groups: Modern matching and other methods. Routledge.
Cizek, G. J. (2004). Validity and Accommodations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cizek, G. J. (2002). Classroom assessment: Enhancing the quality of teacher decision making.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cizek, G. J. (2001). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Cizek, G. J. (2000). The charter school landscape: Politics, policies, and prospects. Teachers
College Press.
Cizek, G. J. (1999). Issues, research, and recommendations for large-scale Assessment programs.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cizek, G. J. (1998). Testing in American schools: Getting the right answers. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cizek, G. J. (1997). Educational testing and measurement (5th ed.). Harper-Collins.
Cizek, G. J. (1995). Computer-based tutorials on statistical concepts. Longman.
Cizek, G. J. (1993). Authentic testing in the classroom. Harper-Collins.
Cizek, G. J. (1992). Practical statistics for educators. Longman.
30
591
Erasure Analysis
Submitted by CTB-McGraw Hilt
January 22, 2010
With the high-stakes nature of large-scale assessments such as the CRCT, there are times when
student's responses, and hence their scores, may not be a true representation of their own abilities.
Various activities may take place, such as a student copying from another student's paper, students
receiving inappropriate assistance before or during testing, or students' responses attered after
testing. To maintain the integrity of the CRCT and the validity of the results, it is important that any
such instances be discovered.
The present study investigated student responses on the Reading, English Language Arts, and
Mathematics Spring 2009 CRCT that a) were erased and b) changed from wrong to right answers
Reviewers should note that results should only be used to facilitate identification of systematic
problems within individual schools, That is, these types of analyses must be supported by additional,
collateral information.
The basis for the erasure analysis is to count erasures in items where an answer choice was erased
and replaced with another answer choice. Often the data captured is useful for identifying cases of
cheating. During erasure analysis, two sets of erasures were analyzed; all erasures and wrong-to-
right erasures where an incorrect answer choice was erased and replaced with the correct answer
choice. Please note that, for the erasure analyses, all items (either the operational or field-test) were
included, as field test items were all embedded in CRCT.
The basic idea underlying the procedure is a statistical test of the null hypothesis (H0) that the mean
number of erasures for a class constitutes a random sample from the state distribution of erasures.
The hypothesis is tested against the (right-sided) alternative (H3) that the mean number is too high
to be explained by random sampling. Classes for which H0 has to be rejected are flagged for further
scrutiny. A well-known central limit theorem in statistics tells us that the sampling distribution of
mean number of erasures for class / (m,) is asymptotically normal with mean and standard deviation
Mean{mj) = jii (1)
Method
(2)
592
where n, and m, denote the size and mean number of erasures for class i, respectively. In addition, u.
and a denote the mean and the standard deviation of the distribution of the number of erasures of
the population of individual students in the state of Georgia.
it is evident in the formula for the state standard deviation that the class flagging criterion for each
class is adjusted for the number of test takers in a classroom. For example, if the state mean and SO
of erasure count are 1.73 and 2. 11, respectively, the flagging criterion for a class size of 20 is
adjusted to 3.15 ( 1 .73 + 3^ - 3. 1 5 ).
This adjustment ensures that the flagging criterion is equally stringent for classes with considerably
different numbers of test takers. In addition, minimizing the probability of false positive (Type I)
errors in this statistical test is crucial in this analysis.
The classes were flagged if their m;wa5 larger than // + 3-^= . Statistically, the flagging criterion
set at or above 3o is conservative. The standard normal table shows that under random sampling
the (asymptotic) probability of a sample mean being more than three standard deviations above the
population mean is around 0.001. However, rejection of H0 only tells us that the observed mean
number of erasures is unlikely to be the result of random sampling.
593
K-8 Schoo! Reform Team-1
Or. Sharon Davis-WiJIiams
Pnmu.ZDA 802-366/
Fa* 40*80E-:JI394
May 8, 2009
MEMORANDUM
To:
Fronr
,ADr. Jackie Boyce, SRT 1 LT
^ Sharon Davis Williams, Executive Director
Re:
Memorandum of Understanding
Dr. Betty Tinsley brought to my attention a situation that occurred at her school
on Friday, May 1 , 2009. She reported to me that shortly after twelve noon, Ms.
Yoianda Coleman, a second grade teacher, reported that you asked her students
if she had given them answers to items on the CRCT. Although Dr. Tinsley
immediately paged you upon hearing this situation, you had apparently left the
building. In our conference, you indicated that you were engaging students in idle
chit chat because the teacher was called to the office. Both Dr. Tinsley and I
were concerned about your rationale for initiating a conversation with students
regarding the CRCT, since the testing had been completed.
The allegation brought forth with your questioning of students has been
investigated and determined unfounded. However, any conversation regarding
possible impropriety should have been reported to the principal. You did not
report the conversation.
ft is important that persons assigned to my team clearly understand their role in
support of schools. Your job is to support the principal and teachers with
technology concerns and needs. If there was any need to discuss anything with
students, it should have been about technology. Again, if you ever observe or
fee! that any impropriety exists, you should report it immediately.
It is important to me that you receive this Memorandum of Understanding in the
spirit in which it is given. I make certain that members of my team know without
question where I stand on compromising issues. I expect you to do your job with
dignity and integrity as well as with clear judgment. Your judgment was flawed
Kennedy Middle Schooi • £25 James P. Brawley Drive. N.W. * Atlanta. GA 30314 * 404-802-3667
•Mwv.atlantcpii3licschocls.us
594
in this! situation, and it is my responsibility to alert you, I hold you accountable for
not having a similar situation occur in the future.
The technology needs for Herndon Elementary have been assigned to Ruben
Berkley for the remainder of this school year.
Cc: Ms. Andrea Waters-Winston, Director of Learning Technologies
Dr. Betty Tinsley
SDW/raj
595
To Whom It May Concern, Board Members, Dr. Hail;
Although Dr. Had calls on all employees to ftjfly cooperate with the G.B.I. inve
Director Tamara Cotmarr recently met with twelve principals in her schools with high erasure marks, to
speak disparagingly about the GBI and the erasure investigation. During her so called Professional
Learning Community (PLC} meeting she spent an hbur being openly hostile and critical about the GBI,
Governor, Mike Bowers and the investigation. At one point she even distributed to each principal a
sheet of paper that had printed at the top of the page "Go to Hell'. She directed each principal to write a
"Go to Hell" memo to the GBI. She then asked each principal to share aloud their memo.
Is this the spirt of cooperation that Dr. Hall is expecting from her leaders, or just another example of a
toxic culture thatfiltersdovm to the schools by executive directors?
Should principals be pulled out of their schools to participate in these intimidating practices?
Will this be addressed internally or will the AJC, GBI, Professional Standards Department need to be
involved in enforcing professional, legal and ethical practices?
Concerned family member of APS employee.
CO
I
00
I
CO
a
<
596
597
Dr. Beverly Hall, Superintendent
130 Trinity Ave SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
ililluiiiliJIaKilliiiHijIiiiiiitWiiiVi/JilliiiiHHj
APS-BHALL 015701
SANTHIA CURTIS
2131 LUCERNE LANE
SMYRNA, GA 30080
770-434-7247 (HOME)
404-550-4862 (CELL)
sicurtfssmyrna@att. net
April 25, 201 1
Via electronic mail and facsimile 404-802-1201 and 404-802-1204
Members of the Atlanta Board of Education collectively and individually:
Mr. Khaatim Sherrer El
Mrs. Cecily Harsh-Kinnane
Ms. Brenda J. Muhammad
Mrs. Nancy M. Meister
Mrs. LaChandra D. Butler-Burks
Ms. Yolanda K. Johnson
Mr. Courtney I). English
Mr. Reuben R. McDaniel III
Mr, Emmett D. Johnson
130 Trinity Ave., SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Re: Veleter Mazyck
Dear Board Member:
On Friday, April 22, 201 1, 1 was advised by my supervisor, Ms. Veleter Mazyck, and the
Director of Human Resources, Ms. Millicent Few, that my position. Deputy General
Counsel would be reclassified to an Assistant General Counsel position in the proposed
FY 2012 Budget and my employment with the District as Deputy General Counsel was
terminated effective immediately. Initially, Ms. Mazyck and Ms. Few asked that I resign
my position in exchange for an immediate pay out. I declined their request as I have
done nothing to trigger a lawful separation. Thereafter, Ms. Mazyck stated that I was
terminated as an at-will employee in order to facilitate the District's transition plan. I
believe the reasons Ms. Mazyck articulated for the reclassification and the termination
are pretextual. Specifically, I believe the sole reason I was terminated was in retaliation
for having engaged in the protected activities of: 1) reporting a claim of discrimination
against her; 2) participating in the investigation of the discrimination claim; and 3)
reporting whistle blower concerns to her as my supervisor pursuant to O.C.G.A. 45-1-4
and the Atlanta Independent School System's Charter.
The Proposed F Y 2012 Budget for the Office of the General Counsel
The proposed FY 2012 Budget for the Office of the General Counsel eliminates the
position of the Deputy General Counsel and reclassifies the position to an Assistant
General Counsel position. The potential savings to the District is minimal as the
599
reclassification amounts to a potential savings of less than $30,000. That aside, and in
the interest of continuity and transition, I offered to take the reduction in pay and fill the
position. Ms. Mazyck told me that was not an option. Of course, I am well qualified for
the Assistant General Counsel position as I have performed and supervised the
responsibilities of that job while at APS. Further, in my more than four years of service
to the District Ms. Mazyck has never issued any negative evaluations, write-ups,
disciplinary actions or formal coaching regarding my job performance. This further
supports my belief that the true reason for the termination is retaliation and cover-up.
The Discrimination Complaint
In October 2010. one of the assistant general counsels (AGC) shared with me his belief
that Ms. Mazyck treated him differently because of his race and gender. The AGC's
allegation was initially sparked by an inappropriate comment Ms. Mazyck made to the
AGC regarding her belief that "women make better mangers than men." Thereafter,
the AGC articulated further concerns regarding a request Ms. Mazyck made of him to
contact the Professional Standards Commission (PSC) regarding one of its investigations
regarding the administration CRCT in one the APS schools (a copy of the complaint is
attached).
Although Ms. Mazyck was my immediate supervisor it was appropriate for me to report
the AGC's concerns of discrimination to Human Resources. I reported the matter to the
Director of Human Resources instead of Ms. Few because the AGC had earlier expressed
concerns that he suspected his privacy had been violated by Ms. Few in another matter.
Out of respect for my supervisor, Ms. Mazyck, I notified her that a complaint was filed.
It was apparent from the conversation I had with her that she was most displeased with
the turn of events and the fact that I filed the formal complaint. The day after I filled the
complaint Ms. Mazyck told me it was inappropriate for me to file the complaint with the
Director of Human Resources and I should have filled the complaint with Ms. Few. Ms.
Mazyck was aware of the AGC's previous concerns regarding Ms. few's potential
violation of his privacy.
As stated above, the discrimination complaint was submitted to the Human Resources
Department on October 25, 2010. Ms. Few's office assigned the investigation of the
discrimination complaint to an outside investigator. Interviews of employees of the
Office of the General Counsel were conducted in November 201 0 and December 2010.
On or about February 23, 201 1. I followed-up with a phone call to the external
investigator regarding the status of the investigation. The call was prompted to ascertain
the status of the matter for the purpose of its production (along with all other OIR files) to
the Governor's Special Investigators pursuant to the subpoena and open records request
of the Governor's Investigators into the CRCT matter1. At that time the investigator told
me that the investigation was complete. He staled he did not prepare a written report
because he was instructed by District personnel (whose name was not disclosed) not to
1 1 specifically recall that the phone call was made about the same time the Tamara Cotraan - (IB I matter
was reported in the media, and we all were made aware of the Cotinan matter; in fact, on or about the first
business day after the matter was reported in the media Ms. Mazyck asked my opinion on whether the
District should produce the ("otman file in that day's production to the special investigators. She decided
not to follow my counsel.
600
provide a written report but only to report back to the District through an oral report".
He indicated he made the oral report several weeks prior to my inquiry in either late
January 201 1 or early February 201 1 , However, the final letter to close out the
investigation was not mailed until two months later - the week of April 15, 201 1 . I was
terminated the following week.
Whistle Blower Matter
In a matter unrelated to the discrimination complaint, in early March 201 1, 1 advised Ms.
Mazyck of a serious matter which had the potential to adversely impact the Board and the
District. Ms. Mazyck instructed me that I was to discuss the matter with no one. My
concerns regarding the matter and the facts surrounding them provide me protection from
retaliation under the whistle blower statutes. However, Ms. Mazyck' s interactions with
me since reporting the matter to her were visibly hostile, verbally hostile and culminated
in my separation Friday, April 22, 201 1. Witnesses to this matter have been and continue
to be concerned about retaliation, from Ms. Mazyck and others
Request for Investigation
The purpose of this correspondence is to put the District on notice that the reasons
articulated by Ms. Mazyck and Ms. Few regarding my separation are pretextual and
retaliatory in violation, of Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983, Title VH of the Civil
Rights Act as amended, and Federal and State whistle blower statues. Specifically, the
reasons tendered for my termination are to cover up the intent to retaliate against me
because I reported and participated in the investigation of a race and gender
discrimination complaint lodged against Ms. Mazyck and because I engaged in activity
that is protected under the whistle blower laws.
I request that before the District accepts or approves the recommended termination in the
Gains and Losses Report and before the District accepts or approves the job abolishment
or reclassification of the position of the Deputy General Counsel in the proposed FY
2010 budget that the District conduct a through, and neutral investigation into all the
circumstances surrounding the termination.
I am available to answer any questions and appreciate your attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
,'sf
Santhia Curtis
cc: Dr. Howard Grant. Board Administrator
2 This is inconsistent with the normal District investigative protocols for other employees.
601
SANTHIA CURTIS
2131 LUCERNE LANE
SMYRNA, GA 30080
770-434-7247 (HOME)
404-550-4862 (CELL)
sicurtfssmyrna@att. net
April 25, 201 1
Via electronic mail and facsimile 404-802-1201 and 404-802-1204
Members of the Atlanta Board of Education collectively and individually:
Mr. Khaatim Sherrer El
Mrs. Cecily Harsh-Kinnane
Ms. Brenda J. Muhammad
Mrs. Nancy M. Meister
Mrs. LaChandra D. Butler-Burks
Ms. Yolanda K. Johnson
Mr. Courtney I). English
Mr. Reuben R. McDaniel III
Mr, Emmett D. Johnson
130 Trinity Ave., SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Re: Veleter Mazyck
Dear Board Member:
On Friday, April 22, 201 1, 1 was advised by my supervisor, Ms. Veleter Mazyck, and the
Director of Human Resources, Ms. Millicent Few, that my position. Deputy General
Counsel would be reclassified to an Assistant General Counsel position in the proposed
FY 2012 Budget and my employment with the District as Deputy General Counsel was
terminated effective immediately. Initially, Ms. Mazyck and Ms. Few asked that I resign
my position in exchange for an immediate pay out. I declined their request as I have
done nothing to trigger a lawful separation. Thereafter, Ms. Mazyck stated that I was
terminated as an at-will employee in order to facilitate the District's transition plan. I
believe the reasons Ms. Mazyck articulated for the reclassification and the termination
are pretextual. Specifically, I believe the sole reason I was terminated was in retaliation
for having engaged in the protected activities of: 1) reporting a claim of discrimination
against her; 2) participating in the investigation of the discrimination claim; and 3)
reporting whistle blower concerns to her as my supervisor pursuant to O.C.G.A. 45-1-4
and the Atlanta Independent School System's Charter.
The Proposed F Y 2012 Budget for the Office of the General Counsel
The proposed FY 2012 Budget for the Office of the General Counsel eliminates the
position of the Deputy General Counsel and reclassifies the position to an Assistant
General Counsel position. The potential savings to the District is minimal as the
602
reclassification amounts to a potential savings of less than $30,000. That aside, and in
the interest of continuity and transition, I offered to take the reduction in pay and fill the
position. Ms. Mazyck told me that was not an option. Of course, I am well qualified for
the Assistant General Counsel position as I have performed and supervised the
responsibilities of that job while at APS. Further, in my more than four years of service
to the District Ms. Mazyck has never issued any negative evaluations, write-ups,
disciplinary actions or formal coaching regarding my job performance. This further
supports my belief that the true reason for the termination is retaliation and cover-up.
The Discrimination Complaint
In October 2010. one of the assistant general counsels (AGC) shared with me his belief
that Ms. Mazyck treated him differently because of his race and gender. The AGC's
allegation was initially sparked by an inappropriate comment Ms. Mazyck made to the
AGC regarding her belief that "women make better mangers than men." Thereafter,
the AGC articulated further concerns regarding a request Ms. Mazyck made of him to
contact the Professional Standards Commission (PSC) regarding one of its investigations
regarding the administration CRCT in one the APS schools (a copy of the complaint is
attached).
Although Ms. Mazyck was my immediate supervisor it was appropriate for me to report
the AGC's concerns of discrimination to Human Resources. I reported the matter to the
Director of Human Resources instead of Ms. Few because the AGC had earlier expressed
concerns that he suspected his privacy had been violated by Ms. Few in another matter.
Out of respect for my supervisor, Ms. Mazyck, I notified her that a complaint was filed.
It was apparent from the conversation I had with her that she was most displeased with
the turn of events and the fact that I filed the formal complaint. The day after I filled the
complaint Ms. Mazyck told me it was inappropriate for me to file the complaint with the
Director of Human Resources and I should have filled the complaint with Ms. Few. Ms.
Mazyck was aware of the AGC's previous concerns regarding Ms. few's potential
violation of his privacy.
As stated above, the discrimination complaint was submitted to the Human Resources
Department on October 25, 2010. Ms. Few's office assigned the investigation of the
discrimination complaint to an outside investigator. Interviews of employees of the
Office of the General Counsel were conducted in November 201 0 and December 2010.
On or about February 23, 201 1. I followed-up with a phone call to the external
investigator regarding the status of the investigation. The call was prompted to ascertain
the status of the matter for the purpose of its production (along with all other OIR files) to
the Governor's Special Investigators pursuant to the subpoena and open records request
of the Governor's Investigators into the CRCT matter1. At that time the investigator told
me that the investigation was complete. He staled he did not prepare a written report
because he was instructed by District personnel (whose name was not disclosed) not to
1 1 specifically recall that the phone call was made about the same time the Tamara Cotraan - (IB I matter
was reported in the media, and we all were made aware of the Cotinan matter; in fact, on or about the first
business day after the matter was reported in the media Ms. Mazyck asked my opinion on whether the
District should produce the ("otman file in that day's production to the special investigators. She decided
not to follow my counsel.
603
provide a written report but only to report back to the District through an oral report".
He indicated he made the oral report several weeks prior to my inquiry in either late
January 201 1 or early February 201 1 , However, the final letter to close out the
investigation was not mailed until two months later - the week of April 15, 201 1 . I was
terminated the following week.
Whistle Blower Matter
In a matter unrelated to the discrimination complaint, in early March 201 1, 1 advised Ms.
Mazyck of a serious matter which had the potential to adversely impact the Board and the
District. Ms. Mazyck instructed me that I was to discuss the matter with no one. My
concerns regarding the matter and the facts surrounding them provide me protection from
retaliation under the whistle blower statutes. However, Ms. Mazyck' s interactions with
me since reporting the matter to her were visibly hostile, verbally hostile and culminated
in my separation Friday, April 22, 201 1. Witnesses to this matter have been and continue
to be concerned about retaliation, from Ms. Mazyck and others
Request for Investigation
The purpose of this correspondence is to put the District on notice that the reasons
articulated by Ms. Mazyck and Ms. Few regarding my separation are pretextual and
retaliatory in violation, of Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983, Title VH of the Civil
Rights Act as amended, and Federal and State whistle blower statues. Specifically, the
reasons tendered for my termination are to cover up the intent to retaliate against me
because I reported and participated in the investigation of a race and gender
discrimination complaint lodged against Ms. Mazyck and because I engaged in activity
that is protected under the whistle blower laws.
I request that before the District accepts or approves the recommended termination in the
Gains and Losses Report and before the District accepts or approves the job abolishment
or reclassification of the position of the Deputy General Counsel in the proposed FY
2010 budget that the District conduct a through, and neutral investigation into all the
circumstances surrounding the termination.
I am available to answer any questions and appreciate your attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
,'sf
Santhia Curtis
cc: Dr. Howard Grant. Board Administrator
2 This is inconsistent with the normal District investigative protocols for other employees.
604
Were warning signs of CRCT cheating ignored by APS because they wanted miracles? j ... Page 1 of 4
Get Schooled
Were warning signs of CRCT cheating ignored by APS because they
wanted miracles?
11:21 am February 12, 2010, by Maureen Downey
In responding to what appears to be epic levels of cheating at her schools. Dr. Beverly Hall has to answer this
question: Did she allow principals to present her with miracles that she failed to question hard enough?
Did APS ever look to see whether students and classes with sudden, unexpected surges in their CRCT scores
maintained those levels of proficiency in high school?
For example, the state audit found compelling evidence of answer sheet tampering in 90 percent of Parks Middle
School classrooms. Has APS ever followed Parks students through to high schools to compare scores?
Consider this post from someone who says they are an APS high school principal: (Whether he/she is a principal is
not critical; it's the comment that I think is credible and worthy of exploration.) (Also, here is a new map of the
possible cheating sites statewide.)
CANT UNDERSTAND HOW PARKS MIDDLE SCHOOL CAN BEAT OUT INMAN AND SUTTON OR
EVEN BUNCH. LOOK AT THE FEEDER SCHOOL DATA AND THEN LOOK AT HIS DATA. THE
FEEDER SCHOOLS ARE DOING POORLY AND THEN THEY GET TO PARKS AND BECOME
SMART. THEN CHILDREN FROM PARKS COME TO MY SCHOOL WITH LEVEL THREE AND
CANT READ.
Many of you have commented that you suspected cheating for many years and that complaints were made. Indeed,
AJC reporter Paul Donsky wrote this story in 2001 . Now, it seems prophetic. If only Dr. Hall had acted on this issue
in 2001. Her reputation and that of her system may not have been on the line today. (Nor did the state respond to
the allegations at the time, even though it could have sought an erasure analysis in 2001 , which, by the way, is a
minimal review and does not catch all instances of cheating.)
Of the 68 elementary schools tested last year, 30 had gains of 30 or more percentage points in one or
more CRCT subjects. Ten of those had gains of 40 or more points. And Dobbs is one of 17 Atlanta
Public Schools that did well enough to come off the 2000 failing list.
Atlanta school officials say new reform efforts and old-fashioned hard work by teachers and students
helped push the district's scores up.
But amid the cheering, there are some questions. A rise in scores is expected the second year any
standardized test is given, as was the case with the CRCT last spring, because students and teachers
become more familiar with the test. But sudden 40-, 50- and even 60-point spikes are not common,
testing experts say.
"Either somebody is doing a terrific job at something ... or there's something inappropriate going on, "
said Gregory Cizek, associate professor of educational measurement and evaluation at the University
of North Carolina.
Some of the numbers are astonishing:
http://blogs.ajc.corn/get-schooled-blog/2010/02/12/were-warnmg-signs-of-crct-cheating-i... 11/23/2010
605
Were warning signs of CRCT cheating ignored by APS because they wanted miracles? | ... Page 2 of 4
> At Dunbar Elementary School near downtown Atlanta, three-quarters of fourth-graders passed the
reading portion of the test, compared to about one-quarter last year.
> At M.A, Jones Elementary in west Atlanta near the Atlanta University Center, 88 percent of fourth-
graders passed in math compared to 34 percent the year before, a 54-point increase.
> At Thomasville Heights Elementary School in southeast Atlanta, 73 percent of fourth-grade students
passed in reading, compared to 19 percent the year before.
Atlanta does about-face
Atlanta's results are notable because many schools that posted huge gains have student populations
that are almost entirely minority and low-income, groups whose test scores historically have lagged far
behind. At several schools that posted huge gains, including Thomasville Heights and Cook
Elementary schools, nearly all students live in public housing.
Atlanta's CRCT scores remain below the state average but are in Sine with neighboring systems in the
metro area. However, Atlanta's scores are rising much faster. For example, 72 percent of Atlanta
fourth-grade students passed in English in 2001, a 15 percentage-point jump from the year before. In
Fulton County, 80 percent passed in English, a 2-point jump. Clayton County posted a 71 percent pass
rate, an 8-point jump. DeKalb County had a 70 percent pass rate, a 3-point jump.
For Atlanta Public School officials, the scores help validate reforms that have been put in place in
recent years, such as an intensive reading program designed to boost literacy in early grades. Kathy
Augustine, deputy superintendent for instruction, said the district also made sure teachers knew the
topics covered on the CRCT. Principals checked regularly to see that those areas were covered in
class.
Atlanta school officials say the rise in CRCT scores should not raise eyebrows, pointing out the
district's SAT scores jumped 16 points this year.
Still, Atlanta school officials say they double- and triple-checked the CRCT results, at times examining
scores of individual students, to make sure the numbers added up.
That wasn't enough for Atlanta school board member Jean Dodd, who stormed out of a school board
meeting Sept. 17 after expressing concern about the validity of the scores. Her comments came during
a portion of the meeting that was closed to the public. The meeting was held to decide the size of
Superintendent Beverly Hall's bonus, which is largely tied to test score results. She received a
$47,520 bonus.
"Over a period of 30 years, I taught every grade of elementary school, " Dodd said in an interview. "I
had just not ever seen scores like that before, and so I just . . . made my concerns known."
Third-party audit sought
Gary Henry, who has studied state testing for years and serves as director of Georgia State
University's Applied Research Center, said Atlanta's results should be independently verified.
"There will be some folks celebrating Atlanta's turnaround, and others shaking their heads at these
results until you have a third party at arm's length validate these results, " said Henry.
The most likely organization to do that is the state Office of Education Accountability, formed last year
to grade schools as part of the state's education reform efforts. OEA Director Davis Nelson said he will
be drafting a policy in the coming months to determine when to launch such investigations. Dramatic
http://blogs.ajcxorn/get-schooled-blog/20 10/02/12^ 1 1/23/2010
606
Were warning signs of CRCT cheating ignored by APS because they wanted miracles? | ... Page 3 of 4
test score jumps could be one trigger of an inquiry.
Atlanta school officials defend the scores and say there's no need for such an audit.
"We are proud and our students are proud of the scores, " said spokeswoman Pat Bowers. "And we
believe the results should be allowed to speak for themselves, particularly when reinforced by other
test scores over the last year."
Cheating and manipulation on standardized tests has occurred in other cities, including New Orleans,
New York and Fairfield, Conn., where officials in 1996 discovered an unusually high number of wrong
answers erased. Two Atlanta high schools were investigated and ultimately cleared last year after
allegations arose of cheating on the high school graduation test.
Georgia State's Henry said there are several possible explanations for Atlanta's test scores.
"When you look at these numbers, " he said, "the first reaction is that your jaw is going to drop."
However, he said a much higher percentage of last year's fourth-graders were enrolled in pre-
kindergarten programs than the previous year's fourth-grade students, making them better prepared.
Also, last year's fourth-graders were also the first in APS to benefit from a new district reading program
that targets early grades.
But, he added, "no single factor is likely to explain" the results.
(Also, here is a new map of the possible cheating statewide.)
1 2 3 Next » Show All
Tell us what you think about the site
Send us
■ your
i suggestion
s about
this page. \
Send a feedback technical issue
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
• Staff contacts
• Reprints and permission
• Contests
• Submit event listings
• Send us news tips
• Careers at AJC
Subscribe »
http://blogs.ajcxom/get-schooled-blog/2010/02/12/were-warning-signs-of-crct-cheating-i... 11/23/2010
607
Perryman-Garrett, Damaris
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Few, Millicent
Thursday, December 22, 2005 2:02 PM
Hall, Beverly L (Supt.)
DeFrain, Pamela; Augustine, Kathy ; Perryman-Garrett, Damaris
RE: [Fwd: Principal Waller at Parks Middle School]
Good Afternoon,
We will have an external investigator begin in the new year.
Millicent D. Few, J.D.,SPHK
Chief Human Resource Officer
Human Resource Services Division
130 Trinity Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
mdfew@atlanta.kl2 .ga.us
4-.
Original Message
From: Hall, Beverly L. (Supt.)
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:15 AM
To: Augustine,- Kathy ; Few, Millicent
Cc: DeFrain, Pamela
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Principal Waller at Parks Middle School]
Importance: High
Please investigate.
Thanks.
Original Message
From; gftpres6bellsouth.net [mailto:gftpres@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:20 AM
To: aftl565@bellsouth.net
Subject: [Fwd: Principal Waller at Parks Middle School]
Please see the information below as another document generated from Parks as per Moral
issues. Thanks.
>
> Subject: Principal Waller at Parks Middle School
>
> Verdaillia, per our conversation yesterday:
>
> On Monday, December 19, several faculty members of Parks Middle School met with Anna and
J^to discuss many of the problems at Parks M.S. Listed is an outline of several of the
concerns raised:
Jjf 1^ There exists a sunshine fund that was taken up by the staff for various purposes
i\c]/uding illnesses and time off. To date, there has been no use of the sunshine fund and
there have been at least three instances where it should have been used. Additionally,
when the staff paid into the fund they were told that checks would not be accepted. When
teacher Kelli Smith enquired about the funds use she was notified that the account was
frozen Because some staff had written bounced checks. But checks were not supposed to be
accepted. Furthermore, there is no account of the cash that most of the staff used to pay
into the account .
>
> 2. Mr. Waller expresses a lax attitude on many issues related to the school because, as
he has expressed to both faculty and parents, he'll "be leaving Parks soon." This leaves
the staff with both confusion and frustration because it seems he is not committed to the o
school, but only to use it as a stepping stone. Furthermore, it insults the teachers who to
have committed themselves to serving the community and the students when the principal S
does not seem to care to serve either. —
1 CO
0-
<
608
>
> 3. Prior to Mr. Waller's arrival there was no assigned parking. Without so much as
informing and/ or consulting the staff there were 5 assigned parking spaces at the
beginning of the year for principal and other administrative staff.
>f4.y Mr. Waller's wife held a birthday party for him on school premises in the conference
rcn-wr for more then 3 hours where only selected staff was asked to attend. Some teachers
were allowed to leave their classrooms where paraprof f esionals were placed as subs so that
they could partake in festivities, while others never received an invitation. After the
party was complete, Mr. Waller got on the loud speaker and told the staff if they wanted
some cake, it would be in the conference room.
>M5i There is a strong rumor about the school that Mr. Waller has both a cousin and a
brother-in-law employed at parks who are viewed by t he rest of the staff as favorites.
By Sandra Ward's (his alleged cousin) own admission, if there was a problem between her
and another staff member he would probably side with her.
>
> 6. Many of the teachers were able to pinpoint specific staff members who are said to be
in "Waller's Circle." These are the individuals he favors and spends time with. He has
been observed telling these staff members not to associate with many of the veteran
teachers. He explicitly told a staff member, "Don't hang out in [Kelli] Smith's circle."
>CV?) On Friday, December 16 Vicki Johnson wa called into a meeting with Mr. Waller and
SRTclirector Mr . Pitts in regard?" CcT the AFT member appreciation at Slice. There was a
note on a f lyeT^wrTt'ten by a staff member" , encouraging the staff to come to the
appreciation and share any of their concerns. This was a private event. However, Vicki
Johnson was held in an intimidating meeting where Mr. Pitts told her if she had any
"issues" she should come to him and not AFT,,..
> ~~~ "*=i"
> 8 . That same morning Vicki Johnson says her desk drawers appeared to have been
jamsapked . Many other teachers said the same. One teacher admitted her invitation to the
a"ppreciation dinner wa'S^iEtssing from her desk.
>
> 9. Sandra Ward, Mr. Waller's alleged cousin, although an AFT member, was not invited to
the membership appreciation dinner by Vicki Johnson but came anyway, without an invited
guests and was said to be a spy for Mr. Waller by all the present staff members.
>
> 10. The staff also reported an us/them mentality among staff where Mr. Waller works
with new staff and not old and is attempting to divide and conquer the seasoned staff.
New staff also carries an attitude that they now more than seasoned staff because they are
in Waller's good graces.
>
> 11. Mr. Waller frequently intimidates the staff by telling them that the school will
either be closing , or be taken over by the staff creating an atmosphere of uncertainty by
the staff on their job security,
>
> >
>
>
O
LO
CD
O
a.
o
Cl
<
609
JAN 1 2006
Dear Dr. Hall,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
This letter is written concerning corruption, misuse and mishandling of federal funds for
Supplemental Educational Services (SES), abuse of power by certain administrators and
designated personnel, and an overall lack of care and concern for the students at Walter Leonard
Parks Middle School.
To begin, Mr. Christopher Waller, principal of Parks, appointed Mrs. Sandra Ward, SFA
Facilitator (and an alleged relative) to be the director of the after school program for the 2005-
2006 school year. Parks is a Needs Improvement (NT) school and must provide supplemental
services to its students as well as send a letter home to parents mfonmng them of their option to
select the provider of their choice. However, when Mrs. Ward and Mr. Waller gave the letter to
the students, they instructed the students to take the letter home to obtain their parents' signature
but to leave the space indicating their choice of a preferred SES provider blank. They told the
students that the school would handle that particular portion of the form. This method was used
because Mr. Waller decided he only wanted to use a SES provider named Preferred Care
Services. It appears that Mr. Waller and Mrs. Ward has a connection to the gentleman who is
affiliated with Preferred Care Services named Mr. Bill Selmon.
There has been dishonesty occurring with the pay and the submission of the time sheets. Mrs.
Ward, the director, receives the largest amount of pay at $40.00 per hour and is ultimately
responsible for the submission of the time sheets; however, Mrs. Ward has only been present for
the after school program approximately five full days since the program started on November 14,
2005. Mrs. Ward may remain for the after school program only on the days when there is a
mandatory after school meeting occurring such as a Design Team Meeting or a Faculty meeting.
Mr. Waller is very aware of Mrs. Ward's non-attendance in the after school program. Mr. Bill
Selmon is also very aware of Mrs. Ward's non-attendance because he has stopped by the school
on several occasions and Mrs. Ward was not present.
Additionally, there are other individuals who are falsifying time spent working with the after
school tutorial program. For instance, there is Mrs. Sonja Thompson (Special Education
Program Assistant) who regularly leaves at 5:30 p. m. although the after school program does not
end until 6:30 p.m. There is also Ms. Kyia Halloway who signs for days she did not work, and
Mrs. Ward knowingly submits time for days and hours that Ms. K. Halloway is not present and
does not work the after school program. Mr. Gregory Reid, the Assistant Principal, also submits
time as a tutor although he does not tutor kids during the after school program.
On most days, there are approximately 20-30 students total who remain for the after school
program. However, the program has one director, approximately sixteen teachers, three clerical
persons, and two support personnel. Many days, teachers have two to zero students. Yet, all of
the staff members are told they can still sign for time although no students are showing up and
CD
o
CD
o
o
CO
CL
<
610
being serviced. The number of personnel staying on a daily basis and signing for time far
outweighs the number of students who are staying after school to be serviced.
Mr. Waller and Mrs. Ward received a heads up that the program may potentially be audited;
therefore, the week of December 5, 2005, Mr. Waller and Mrs. Ward summoned students, over
the PA system, to come and sign attendance sheets daring back to the first day the after school
program began through December 22, 2005, the last day of the first semester of school before the
Holiday break. Mr. Waller and Mrs. Ward had approximately all of the students who returned
forms for the after school supplemental services to engage in the falsification of the attendance
sheets. They had both students who had been attending the after school program and students
who had never attended the program to sign the attendance sheets. Mr. Waller had different
color pens, markers, and pencils spread out on the table. They had the students to sign different
dates using various colors of ink and pencil so the attendance sheets would look authentic and
believable. When some of the students questioned Mr. Waller and Mrs. Ward as to why they had
to sign the sheets, they told the students that their names were going to be entered into a drawing
for a Play Station game or a bicycle. Mr. Waller's target date for giving out a few prizes to the
students was the last day before the Holiday break. He knew that he must follow through on this
promise to the students to keep down any of their suspicions. Mr. Waller did raffle off prizes
during the Holiday program held at the end of the school day on Thursday, December 22, 2005.
The student names that were entered m the raffle are those who they summoned to falsify the
attendance sheets. Speak to some of the students and you will discover (hat many of them never
remain for the after school services. Also, look into the funds that were used to purchase the
raffle prizes.
Furthermore, the SES after school services was canceled on both Wednesday, December 21,
2005, and Thursday, December 22, 2005. Check to see if students signed the attendance sheets
for these two days and whether the SES staff time sheets reflect the staff worked these two days.
The week of January 9, 2006, the SES after school services were canceled without giving parents
or students any prior notice. Many students remained after school and missed their buses. Mrs.
Ward claims that she canceled the program because evei^thing is too chaotic. Mrs. Ward and
Mr. Waller are suspicious of people talking about the after school program. They are utilizing
this week to try to get their information/documentation in order and cover up all of their
missteps.
A diagnostic assessment was administered to the students on the first two to three days of the
after school program; however, Mrs. Ward never graded the tests and actually misplaced the
students' answer sheets. Mr. Waller forced teachers (who work for the after school program) to
give up their planning period during the regular school day in order to re-administer the after
school diagnostic test to students. Mr. Michael Jackson, the Opportunity teacher, helped
orchestrate the second administration of the diagnostic test for the after school program. He
went around pulling students out of their connections classes (and sometimes core classes) to
retake the assessment. The second administration of the diagnostic test was done to help cover
up the mishandling of the program. Also, they wanted the number of diagnostic tests to match
the number of students who would now appear to have been present in the program (as a result of
the falsified student attendance sheets). The week of December 21, 2005, teachers were also o
CO
o
O
CO
<
611
made to complete CRCT forms that were used make it appear that Mrs. Ward, the after school
program director, had done the appropriate analysis on the students needs.
Mr. Waller and Mrs. Ward also began forcing student athletes to report to Dr. Alfred Kiel, for
the first 30 minutes after school, for mandatory tutoring. Many of the athletes did not even
choose the SES services. Most of the athletes being forced to tutorials do not need the services.
Many of these students met and a lot of them exceeded on all parts of the G.C.R.C.T. Mr.
Waller and Mrs. Ward are forcing the student athletes to attend tutoring so it will boost the
student attendance number on the attendance sheets. Mr. Waller and Mrs. Ward informed the
students that they could not participate in their sport or ride the after school/activities bus unless
they complied with this request. Although Dr. Kiel only tutors students for the first 30 rninutes
of after school, time is still being submitted for him as if he works until the program ends.
hi addition, the teachers haye not been provided with an after school program curriculum, scope
and sequence, teaching resources, or any instructional direction.
The SES provider, Preferred Care, is supposed to provide a complete snack for the students each
day. There have been days where the students did not have a snack at all. On other days, when
the students were provided snacks, they were not provided with a drink.
Other Abuses;
« Mr. Waller attempts to persuade, intimidate and coerce teachers to cheat on the upcoming
spring 2006 G.C JLC.T. He constantly makes statements such as, "We know that they
are cheating at the Elementary Schools. It is no way that those elementary test scores are
real. Unless we [Parks] do like them [the Elementary schools], we will continue to look
bad." Or he makes comments such as, "Price [Middle School] had to cheat They [Price]
are smart. Hey, if you can't beat them, join them." Mr. Waller is always questioning
teachers how many of their students are going to pass the G.C.R.C.T. If a teacher
respond sixty of their students [out of apx. 1 00], he makes comments such as "I expect no
less than eighty or ninety students passing." Then he goes further with similar comments
like those above such as, "You need to teach the test. Do what you've got to do." If a
teacher questions or disagrees with the suggestive comments that Mr. Waller makes, he
usually follows by asking, "Are you a team player? Are you on my team?" or by making
comments such as "I need people who are on my team." These examples provide the
context in which the attempted persuasion, mtimidation, and coercion generally take
place.
• Mr. Waller also attempts to mtirnidate teachers to not talk to or associate to other staff
members. For instance, if he observes Teacher A speaking to another staff member he
considers "not being a part of his team," he will make comments to Teacher A such as,
"You were doing good by staying away from that "click". Don't get caught up with the
wrong "click." Or he will say, "If you disassociate yourself from that "crew" you won't
have to worry about any repercussions from us [bis adrninistrative team]. Be wise, and
stay away from that "crew." Additional intimidating comments are, "I observe you
talking to your friends again. If I were you, I wouldn't be caught talking to them
anymore." Mr. Waller is constantly harassing staff members with these types of
612
warnings. He has created a very tense atmosphere at Parks in which there is absolutely
no trust among colleagues and everyone is paranoid, and afraid to speak to or hold cordial
conversation "with one another because no one wants to be perceived as being associated
with the wrong "crew" and not being on Mr. Waller's "team".
• Further intimidation occurred during a faculty meeting held on Tuesday, January 10,
2006. Mr. Waller passed out a job description document to all staff members,
highlighted only the last bullet of the document, and read it aloud, and it states, "Perform
all other tasks and duties as assigned," and Mr. Waller added, "By ADMINISTRATOR!"
• Mr. Waller targets teachers who he feels are not on his "team" or non- compliant to his
demands. He targets these teachers by having several members of the administrative
team such as Mrs. Sonja Thompson, PEC Program Assistant, Dr. Kiel, Mr. Reid, and
Mrs. Ward, go into their classrooms (on the same day or often during the same week) to
observe their classroom. He instructs these individuals to document everything they
performed wrong during the teacher's lesson. These observations are not for the sincere
purpose of helping teachers improve instruction because most times, the teachers do not
receive any constructive feedback or suggested strategies for improving teaching. These
"targeted observations" are conducted for the mere purpose of intimidation or oblaming
negative documentation against a teacher. Another tactic used to target teachers is to
submit their names for needing assistance with the implementation of instructional
initiatives to personnel outside of Parks. The teachers' names are submitted without a
formal internal conference with the concerned administrative team member or without
mforming the teachers what they are not doing properly and without giving the teachers
effective strategies for their improvement Also, Mr. Waller has Mrs. Sonja Thompson,
PEC Program Assistant, to write letters to both special education and regular education
teachers reprimanding the teachers for whatever she deems. These letters go into
teachers' personnel file. Mrs. Thompson signs her letters "Administrator".
• Mr. Waller makes teachers who are assigned monthly morning duty report to work at
8:00 a.m. This reporting time is forty-five minutes earlier than APS scheduled reporting
time for middle school students, which is at 8:45 a.m.
• Mr. Waller instructed teachers to no longer take homeroom attendance in Class XP
(linked to APS SASI system) for months. He actually questioned a teacher during a
meeting why was the teacher still taking attendance in Class XP after he instructed
teachers not to. Instead, Mr. Waller forced the attendance clerk to manipulate the student
attendance in SASI to ensure the attendance target for AYP is met It was not until
Monday, December 19, 2005, that Mr. Waller made Ms. White, the attendance clerk,
begin making announcements that it was mandatory for teachers to take homeroom and
period attendance in Class XP. He also coerced Lisa Hill, Instnictional Technology
Specialist assigned to support Parks, to monitor attendance daily and send teachers e-
mails (beginning this same week) if they were not using Class XP for their attendance.
Ms. Hills' involvement was strange yet obvious. Ms. Hill had not been reporting to Parks
to assist teachers for over two months. For her to suddenly begin reappearing at this time
was obvious to all that Mr. Waller was utilizing Ms, Hill so that he could claim that
teachers were not properly taking attendance either due to their ignorance or due to
technical difficulty, when in fact, Mr. Waller instructed teachers not to take attendance.
Again,, this was another tactic used by Mr. Waller to cover his tracks.
o
CD
o
ET
O
CO
CL
<
613
Mr. Waller flirts, make inappropriate comments, and sexual gestures to many female staff
members. He threatens that it is me female teachers' word against his word.
During the week of November 28, 2005, Mr. Reid, assistant principal, planned a surprise
birthday parry for Mr. Waller and invited select staff members. The parry was held in
Mr. Waller's conference room during regular school hours. The invited guests included
Mrs. Melanie Clark (who was gone off campus the entire morning purchasing the food,
cake, and decorations for the party), Mrs. Sandra Ward, Mrs. Sonja Thompson, Mr.
Michael Jackson, Mrs. Cheryl Hunley (leadership facilitator from the state department of
education), Mr. Henry Coleman (CIS), Mrs. Laverne Grant (special education
paraprofessional who is constantly given the okay to leave her classroom to handle or
assist with matters not related to her immediate responsibilities. An example of this is
helping in the front office), Ms. Kyia Halloway (who was released during her regular 8*
grade math class through coverage provided by another special education
paraprofessional pulled out of her assigned class), and Coach Jimmy Lipscomb. The
party lasted approximately two hours from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m., and the attendees
remained in the conference room for the entire period with the door locked.
Teachers at Parks paid $25.00 for Sunshine Committee dues (checks were not accepted).
There have been three staff members ill, Ms. Marshall, Mrs. Watson, and Mrs. Smiley
(two out sick for a long period of time). When it was questioned whether or not the
Sunshine Committee sent flowers or gifts, the response was that there was a freeze on the
Sunshine Committee account. The staff is curious were the funds have been spent. Mrs.
Melanie Clark is chair of the Sunshine Committee. It is also alleged that Mrs. Clark is
Mr. Waller' s mistress and that Mr. Waller gives Mrs. Clark money from petty funds such
as the Suiisbine Committee and money raised from school functions such as sporting
events, dances, and bake sales.
There was a Homeroom contest to raise funds for families of students who attend Parks
that relocated due to the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Over two thousand dollars was
raised by the students and staff at Parks. No one knows how this money has been spent.
To everyone's knowledge, none of the students or families affected by Hurricane Katrina
has received any money or donations. It is alleged that Mr. Waller purchased Walmart
and Best Buy gift certificates with the money raised to give to the families. It is said that
these gift cards have significant spending limits. Also, there have been allegations
surfacing that Mr. Waller and Mrs. Clark have been utilizing the gift cards for personal
use.
Mrs. Clark is hired as a special education paraprofessional; however, at the beghining of
the school year, Mr. Waller removed Mrs. Clark from a special education classroom and
assigned her to assist the media specialist. Mrs. Clark was never in the media center.
She always ran special errands off campus or around the school for Mr. Waller.
Eventually, during the second semester, Mr. Waller hired another paraprofessional, Ms.
Femdinand, to assist in the media center with Title I funds (even though the school
needed a 6th grade math teacher and a 7th grade science teacher at the time). Now, Mrs.
Clark works in the main office as an office assistant, although she is hired as a special
education paraprofessional. Parks has five special education teachers - Ms. M Jones,
Ms. V. Johnson, Ms. J. Watson, Ms. A. Johnson, and Dr. Flagler - however, there are
only three paraprofessionals assigned to assist the teachers ~ Ms. A. Hadley, Mr. Judge,
614
and Ms. L. Grant (who is never in her class and always hanging in the CIS room or
helping Mrs. Clarke in the front office).
• Mr. Michael Jackson was hired as an opportunity teacher; however, he has not had an
opportunity class since the beginning of the school year. Mr. Waller utilizes Mr. Jackson
as if he is another Assistant Principal, allowing Mr. Jackson to roam the halls all day with
a radio. In addition, Mr. Jackson is getting paid to work in the after school program, and
he is not a certified teacher and never tutors any students.
* Ms. Kyia Halloway, an 8th grade mathematics teacher and a second alleged mistress of
Mr. Waller's, is constantly pulled out of her classroom during the regular school day to
fulfill personal requests for Mr. Waller such as creating "Club Day" schedules and
assisting with system and state reports/documents. Ms. Halloway is usually provided
with a supply teacher for the entire day or Mr. Waller directs a special education
paraprofessional to cover Ms. Halloway' 5 class for the entire day. When Ms. Halloway
shows up to work in her jogging suit, it is understood that Mr. Waller is providing her
coverage for that day to utilize Ms. Halloway to complete his requests as he deems. This
has been a frequent reoccurrence and Mr. Waller does not code this in APS' system. It
most recently happened on Tuesday, January 10, 2006. Any of the 8th grade teachers can
attest to this.
As a concerned constituent, I hope these issues are addressed. As such, I will be forwarding a
copy of this letter to the following people:
Dr. Beverly Hall, Superintendent
Ms. Kathy Augustine, Assistant Superintendent
Mr, Michael Pitts, Executive Director SRT-2
Ms. Sheryl Freeman, Acting Director of Office of Internal Resolution
Sincerely,
A very concerned constituent
615
Atlanta-Public Schools
Office iff the Superintendent.
130 Trinity Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia, 30303-3624
Phone: (404) 802-2S20 :• Fax: (404) 802-1S03
blhall@atlanta.kl2.ga.us
□, For Your Information
□ Fir Our Conversation
' Q ■ Furfher' Discussion.lSleede4
□\More.Information Needed
□ Referred to J" - - ' -■
" : Q ' Please Schedule Meeting with Me
□ .. Please Respond' arid-Copy- Me
□ ' Respond by _ - -
D Prepare Response for my Signature
□ Copy to : '
' Comments:' . - - . ' ■ -"
□. Return info: • .
Returned by: " - , -• " - Qate:
Disposition: .^k_______ :
Beverly I. Rail, Ed.D.
' . Superintendent
!ni
E t 1
1 W 1
3
JAN 1 7 200S
ATLANTA PUSH IC SCHOOL
HUMAN RESOURCE. SEF, '(0
s
616
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Office of the
CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICER
Human Resource Services Division
DATE:
TO:
The attached is sent to you for the following:
□ Please handle and inform me
a For your information
□ Per our conversation
a Further discussion needed
□ More information needed
□ Referred to: ^ -
□ Please schedule a meeting with me
□ Please respond and copy me by: ~
□ Prepare a response for my signature
□ Copy to: -
□ Return information by:
Comments: _
617
January 16, 2006
Dear Ms. Freeman,
This letter is written regarding dishonest and unethical practices occurring at Walter Leonard
Parks Middle School in the Atlanta Public School system as it pertains to the upcoming 2006
Georgia Middle Grades Writing Assessment that will be administered on January 18-19, 2006.
The writing booklets are being secured in Dr. Alfred Kiel's office, the Instructional Liaison
Specialist, Mr. Christopher Waller, principal, and Dr. Kiel, looked at the official writing prompt
for this years' assessment.
The week of January 9, 2005, the eighth grade teachers and other designated teachers/school
personnel were given the task of conducting last minute writing workshops with the eighth grade
students in hopes of better preparing the students for the upcoming test. These staff members
were given a packet with the title Tips for Passing the 8th Grade Writing Test. On the front of the
second page, there are ten sample writing topics listed for practice (enclosed).
After Mr. Waller and Dr. Kiel looked at the official writing prompt, it was emphasized to the
teachers on Friday, January 13, 2006, to have the students concentrate on #7 of the sample
writing topics located in the writing packet. Topic #7 states:
"Think of a rule in your home, school, or community that you feel is unfair.
Tell what the rule is, explain why you think it is unfair, and describe how
you would change it."
The teachers were informed that the sample question above was very close to the official writing
prompt; however, instead of the word rule, the official writing prompt will ask the students to
think of a Law that is unfair. The students were also told that rumor has it that the real writing
prompt is going to ask them about a Law that they think is unfair, thus, the eighth grade students
were instructed to start brainstorming on particular Laws that they think are unfair. The students
were also told to think of persuasive arguments as to why the particular law [thought of by the
student] is unfair and what they [the student] would do to change the law or improve the law.
To follow up on these concerns, I would advise that you speak to both the eighth grade teachers
and eighth grade students to verify the claims written in this letter.
Sincerely,
An Ethical Individual
ro
o
CD
o
rr
o
w
o.
<
618
Phoenix Research &
Investigations
Memo
To: Ms. Damans Perryman-Garrett
From: Reginal J Dukes
Dates March 15, 2006
Re: Preliminary findings / Parks Middle School
The following is a preliminary finding into improprieties at Parks Middle School
outlined in an anonymous letter received by your office on January 13, 2006.
Summary of Allegation
I. The Supplemental Educational Services (SES) after school program is being abused,
in operation and by participating teachers and administrators.
II. The Georgia Middle Grades Writing Assessment (2006) may have been compromise
after Mr. Waller persuaded, coerced teachers to cheat on the test.
III. Mr, Waller has began intimidating, threaten and urging teachers to reveal any information
they may have about this investigation.
Person Interviewed
During the course of this investigation Reginal Dukes interviewed nine persons, including Mr.
Waller and Mr. Pitts
Preliminary Findings
Since the beginning of this investigation, working conditions at Parks Middle School have
become very difficult for some of the teachers and other staff that are viewed as having
intimate knowledge of some
1
GOSA_APS_DUKES 000001
619
of the allegations. There should be some consideration to alleviating the anxiety currently
existing.
The information acquired thus far certainly indicates that there were some improper conduct
and or practices taking plane at Parks Middle School. "
This investigation will require many more interviews of staff as well as some parents and
students.
• Page 2
GOSA APS DUKES 000002
620
Confidential Draft
i
Report of Investigation
For
Atlanta Public Schools
Parks Middle School
Prepared by:
Investigator Reginal J. Dukes
Phoenix Research & Investigations, LLC
May 5, 2006
O)
v-
UO
CD
O
Private & proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix O
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product. «
<
621
Table of Contents
Page
A.
Summary of Investigation
3
B.
Investigative Details
4
C.
Conclusion
D. Attachments
1. Summary of issues from initial investigation of first communication
2. Outline of issues from investigation of subsequent communications
3. Interview of Christopher Waller
4. Interview of Gregory Reid
5. Interview of Sandra Ward
6. Interview of Fabiola Aurelien
7. Interview of Anthony Tiller
8. Interview of Tamika Butler
9. Interview of Felicia Phillips
10. Interview of Kelley Collins
11. Interview of Melanie Clark
12. Interview of Sujuana White
13. Flow chart of student attendance documentation process
14. Sujuana White email to SASI Project Manager on concerns
15. Sujuana White statement of change in duties and resulting injury
16. Sujuana White statement of Mr. Reid's cali to someone to interfere with Ms. White's past/future
unemployment status
17. Interview of Alfred Kiel
18. Follow-up interviews with 8th grade teachers
19. Interviews of Students
20. Interview of Mr. Pitts
21. Interview of Kelfi Smith
22. List of PCSS students 2005 (first semester)
23. List of PCSS students 2006 (second semester)
24. Pending documents not received from PCSS
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
622
Report of Investigation — Parks Middle School
Summary of basis for investigation
This inquiry commenced on January 10, 2006 with the receipt of an email from the Atlanta
Federation of Teachers, sometime in late December 2005. The concerns expressed at that time
were vague and nonspecific and did not rise to the level of any policy violations. Initially, it was
decided that an inquiry be made to determined if there was more information that would give us an
understanding as to exactly what was occurring at Parks Middle School.
Sometime around January 13, 2006, a second piece of communication (letter) arrived, via U.S. Mail,
for Ms. Sheryl Freeman in the Office of Internal Resolution. This letter had some very specific
allegations;
(a) citing some operation discrepancies in the Supplemental Educational Services (SES)
after school tutorial program at Parks Middle School;
(b) allegations of manipulation of the SASI system attendance (class XP); and
(c) numerous instances of questionable managerial practices by Principal Waller and
other staff members.
The third letter was received sometime prior to January 18, 2006. It contained information of
possible cheating on Hie eighth grade-writing exam. Both letters were anonymous and the email
from AFT did not reveal their source or author of information.
Copies of these communications were provided to Investigator Dukes, after which he held
interviews with members of the faculty and staff at Parks Middle School. A summary of each of
those interviews is included in the attachments to this report.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School. System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. "Phis is a confidential draft of findings as attorney -client work product,
623
Investigative Details
The investigation initially focused on the issues raised in the first communication1, but was refocused
to concentrate on the four issues in the second and third anonymous communications:
- Supplemental Educational Services After School Tutorial Program
- SASI data system
- 8th grade writing test
- Principal's managerial practices
(1) Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Afterschool Tutorial Program
The investigation found that parents were not given a choice of providers for this program:
• During the selection process of the SES providers, students were not given the complete
package, which should have included:
o a letter to parent(s) with instructions,
o a list of providers
o the request form for supplemental services (on all the Request for
Supplemental Services forms for Parks Middle School, PCSS is the first and
only choice. It is written in with a different handwriting from the rest of the
form in all cases.)
• This practice has continued with the distribution of application forms on March 9, 2006.
The investigation found that teachers did not have written instructions or curriculum for participating
in the program:
• No written instructions could be found, The ad hoc program coordinator stated that no
written instructions were provided to the teachers.
• It was determined that Assistant Principal Reid is the paid program coordinator for the
afterschool program, but Ms, Sandra Ward was the unpaid coordinator for the program.
Ms. Ward was not full-time and her lack of availability during the program time was of
concern to several teachers and staff. Ms. Ward was available during the school day
and for a short time after school for some coordination. The teachers and staff
participating in the program considered her the program coordinator and did not
approach Mr. Reid on their concerns. Ms. Ward was sent to the initial program
overview by the Principal and has been working with this specific provider since October
2005.
' See attachment #1
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School. System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
624
5
• The teachers did not work with the same student from one day to the next, making
progress reports difficult
• Some teachers working in the program did not always remain on campus during the after
school hours of the operation, however, they were allowed to sign in. Some were
encouraged to sign in and allowed to attend faculty meetings and design team meetings
during those hours.
• There appeared, according to records, to be a large number of support persons working the
program. These persons had little or no roll in providing tutorial services to students.
The investigation found that student participation was not regularly documented:
• Student attendance was not documented on a daily bases, attendance sheets for the 2005
sessions were carried to regular class sessions by staff members (December 2005) in an
effort to get reports to the site provider (Preferred Care School Services). Students were
asked to sign the attendance sheets without any verification of their attendance or
enrollment in the program.
• Timesheets for teachers and students' attendance sheets were submitted to Atlanta Public
Schools, External Programs for December 20th and 21st, 2005, these were days that the
sessions were canceled, and no one participated, students) nor teachers(s).
• Of the 96 students on the official list of certified students, approximately half were not
eligible to participate.
• The records on student participation have been "lost." There is a lack of consensus on
the number of students that are participating in the program. There is concern raised
by staff and students on documentation of participation in the program.
• There is an allegation that students were given prizes to incent them to falsify
documentation about participation in the program. During the December pep rally,
names of students eligible to participate in the program were pulled from a hat and
prizes awarded included Play Stations. The students had earlier been called to the
office to sign an attendance spreadsheet, allegedly with different ink pens.
n
CM
LO
to
o
I
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
investigation and Research, "("his is a confidential draft of findings its attorney-client work: product. CO
O.
<
625
SASI data system
The investigation found allegations of manipulation of student attendance and student grades in
the SASI data system. Specific allegations are that:
- Suspended students are not properly documented as absent in all classes
- The SASI clerk was directed by the Principal to change attendance data to reduce
absences
- The SASI clerk was directed by the Instructional Learning Specialist to create student
grades for data missing from teachers in order to meet the report card deadline
- The SASI clerk has been changed but her access number is still being used
8th grade writing test
The investigation found that a tip sheet was provided to all 8th grade students, as early as prior
to the Christmas break for the January writing test. The tip sheet included sample questions
that were the same or very similar to the questions on the actual test. The tip sheet was given
to the students by their language arts teachers, most noted was Mr. Rodgers.
One teacher stated that a student came to her about the Principal asking him to change one of
his answers on the test.
Principal's Managerial practices
The investigation did not focus on managerial style or practices. The investigation did find that:
- Some employees feel they have been threatened by the principal, assistant principal,
and/or the educational instructional specialist in regards to the after school program
performance reports and the SASI data input
- There is general discontent among the teachers and the students about the perceived
disorganized and dishonest manner in which the after school program has been
managed, and they feel that the Principal has been involved in the process
- One employee has been hospitalized for two weeks due to high blood pressure. She
indicated this medical condition was due to stress from a hostile work environment.
This is the same hourly employee who has indicated she was required to work
overtime without pay to maintain her job.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta 'Public School System — Office of Interna] Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
626
Conclusion
Based on these investigative findings, we conclude that:
Preferred Care School Services
• Principal Waller is aware of and involved in the daily operations of the SES Afterschool
Program run by Preferred Care School Services. He was involved in:
• the selection of the ad hoc program coordinator, Ms. Sandra Ward
• the selection of some of the teachers as tutors
• the supervision of the support staff, during school hours and afterschool
• purchase of gifts for a raffle to incent students to attend to program
• Principal Waller is aware of the operational issues with the PCSS program. He has
been involved in:
• Meetings with teachers
• Meetings with support staff
• Meetings with PCSS staff
• Purchase of gifts to help improve attendance in the program
• There was no evidence that Principal Waller is being compensated by PCSS.
• The current after school program run by Preferred Care School Services is poorly
organized and poorly implemented. This has caused frustration with teachers and
students.
• The documentation for teacher participation and student participation is not based on
actual participation by either. The poor program implementation makes it impossible
to determine who participated and when.
SASI data system
Based on the investigative findings, we conclude that there is reason for concern about the
accuracy of the attendance and grades input into the SASI system at Parks Middle School.
Further computer forensic investigation would be needed to determine the veracity of this
concern starting with:
• tracking how suspended students have been entered for the school year and
• back-up documentation on all grades entered for the first semester.
8th Grade Writing Test
Based on the investigative findings, we conclude that students were coached on the topics that
were actually on the formal writing exam. The language arts teacher most mentioned in
providing this information is no longer at the school. The investigation did not determine how
he gained access to this information. We do also conclude that there is reason for concern
about the securing of these tests before the exam at Parks Middle School.
We also conclude that further investigation is needed on the second-hand information that the
School Principal interceded during the test to make students change test answers.
This investigation did not include addressing the managerial practices of the school Principal,
but the original and expanded issues that were investigated raise concerns about the climate at
Parks Middle School.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
627
8
Attachment 1
Issues raised
Allegations
Persons interviewed
1. Sunshine fund
Checks received far death or illnesses in the family were
bouncing because of mismanagement of the "sunshine
fund."
1/10 Chris Waller
1/10 Kelii Smith
2. Birthday party
Certain teachers were asked to leave class during
instructional time to attend a birthday party for the
school principal.
1/10 Chris Waller
3. Nepotism
the school principal has hired his brother-in-law and
cousins as employees at the school in violation of
system policy.
1/10 Chris Waller
4. ATF flyer
A flyer was circulated from the teachers union at the
school for a meeting to discuss concerns at the school.
1/10 Chris Waller
1/17 Mr. Pitts
Sunshine fund
Investigators interviewed PMS staff to determine who manages the sunshine fund and how It operates. The focus was on determining if checks
received from the sunshine fund for death or illness In the family were returned from Insufficient funds. During the interview staff members
indicated that Melanie dark and April Hadley were managing the program, while the school principal indicated that Ms. Hide and Ms. McColiugh
were managing the program.
There was consensus that the sunshine fund comes from voluntary contributions by school staff for distribution to school staff in times of illness
or death in the family. Na written procedures were found. This investigation was terminated at the direction of APS given that the sunshine
fund is not a system program and to focus on the issues raised in the second communication.
Birthday party
Investigators interviewed PMS staff to determine if and when the party happened, and who was invited. The focus was on determining if
teachers were allowed or required to leave class during instructional time and If there was selectively in teachers invited.
During the interview of the school principal it was determined that a "surprise" birthday party for him had been coordinated by his wife at the
school on December 1st. The school principal indicated that only non-1 nstructionai staff attended the party and teachers were invited after the
party to come to the conference room during their breaks to share in the refreshments. This investigation was terminated at the direction of
APS to fucus on the issues raised in the second communication.
Nepotism
Investigators Interviewed PMS Principal to determine if he had hired any relatives as staff at Parks Middle School. The focus was to determine if
APS system policy was violated on hiring of relatives.
During the interview of the principal he stated that he had not hired his brother-in-law, cousins, or any other relatives at Parks Middle School.
He also stated that the hiring of cousins was not in violation of APS system policy. The person specifically considered to be a relative was Ms.
Sandra Ward. This investigation was terminated at the direction of APS to focus on the issues raised in the second communication.
ATF Flyer
Investigators interviewed PMS staff to determine If the flyer was circulated and what were the underlying concerns, The focus was to
determine if a meeting was called and held, and what were the reasons for concern.
It was determined that the flyer was circulated at the school for a holiday party. It was determined that a handwritten note was added to the
printed flyer indicating that the party would include a discussion of concerns at the school. It could not be determined who added the
handwritten note, but it appears to have been on all flyers distributed. The party/meeting was held an December 16th- There was a discrepancy to
on statements regarding who attended the December meeting with tine union representative to discuss the flyer. This investigation was Jo
terminated at the direction of APS to focus on the issues raised in the second communication. g
Private & Proprietary information, tor the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Interna! Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation and Research. Tbis is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product. £
CL
<
628
9
Attachment 2
2nd letter issues
Allegations
Persons interviewed2
1. After school tutoring
program
a. Parents did not have a choice in
selecting the afterschool tutoring provider.
Reviewed parent forms
b. The person in charge of managing the
person, was not the same person being
paid to manage the program.
2/12 SuJuana White 2/12 FablolaAurellen
2/16 Sandra Ward 2/17 Chris Waller
2/17 SaJuana White 2/17 Fabioia Aurelien
3/1 Gregory Reid 3/1 Sonja Thompson
3/1 Alfred Kiel 3/1 Anthony Tiller
3/1 Melanie Clark
c. The teachers who participated did not
receive instruction on program operations.
2/12 Fabioia Aurelien 2/17 Fabioia Aurelien
2/17 Chris Waller 2/17 Felicia Phillips
3/16 KeNey Collins
d. The student program participation was
falsified.
2/12 SuJuana White 2/12 Fabioia Aurelien
2/17 Chris Waller 2/17 SuJuana White
2/17 Felicia Phillips 3/1 Gregory Reid
3/1 Alfred Kiel 3/1 Anthony Tiller
3/7 Tamika Butler 3/16 Keliey Collins
777
Students (see footnote)
e. Teachers and staff participants were
not paid equally nor based on actual
participation
i/ll Fabioia Aurelien 2/17 SuJuana White
3/1 Gregory Reid 3/1 Sonja Thompson
3/1 Anthony Tiiler 3/1 Melanie Clark
f. threats
2/12 Fabioia Aurelien
/-{i/ bujuana wnite
2, SASI documentation
a. suspended students are not
documented in the attendance system
2/12 SuJuana White
b. students are suspended more than 9
days per incident
2/12 SuJuana White
c. staff paid/threatened to manipulate
SASI attendance data
2/12 SuJuana White
d. staff threatened to manipulate SASI
grades data
2/12 SuJuana White
e. student scheduled not updated
properly regarding in confusion on where
students are and problems with
attendance documentation
2/12 SuJuana White
3. Study tips with writing
prompts
Students were given actual test questions
prior to formal testing.
2/12 FablolaAurellen
3/1 Alfred Kiel
3/7 Tamika Butler
3/1 Students
CN
,, " LO
These persons were questioned about issues relating to the allegation, not whether they agreed or disagreed with the o
allegation. £
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix o
Investigation and Research. "This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product. to
D_
<
629
Interview of Christopher Waller
Investigator Reginal Dukes met with Mr. Christopher Waller on January 10, 2006 and February
17, 2006 at Parks Middle School. Mr. Waller provided the following information:
Mr. Waller is employed for one year with the Atlanta Public School System as Principal of Parks
Middle School. On January 10th, Mr. Waller was asked about four issues arising out of the first
ATF email;
(1) Mr. Waller was asked about his knowledge about the operation of the "sunshine fund" at Parks Middle
School. He advised that he was aware of the existence of the fund, but not aware on how it operates.
(2) Mr. Waller was asked about his knowledge of teachers leaving students during instructional time to
attend a birthday party in his honor. He advised that there was a surprise birthday party on December 1,
2005 in his honor. His wife coordinated the party. Mr. Waller advised that only non -instructional staff was
in attendance, and that teachers were invited over the PA system to share in the refreshments during their
planning period.
(3) Mr, Waller was asked whether he had hired any relatives as employees at Parks Middle School in
violation of APS nepotism policy. He advised that he had hired no direct relatives (as defined by APS), nor
had he hired anyone who lived with him that was not a relative. Mr. Waller made the point that cousins
are not direct reiatives under the APS nepotism policy.
(4) Mr. Waller was asked about the distribution of an ATF flyer promoting a Christmas holiday party that
would also include discussion of concerns about issues at the school. He advised that he was aware of the
flyer, and that on December 16th he and Mr. Pitts met with Ms. Vicki Johnson, the ATF representative at
the school to discuss the flyer. Mr. WaiSer advised that any concerns are a result of him being the new
Principal and his decisions as such,
Mr. Waller was interviewed again on February 17th on another issue3, specifically about his
knowledge of the supplemental educational services provided by Preferred Care School Services
(PCSS):
Mr. Waller advised that he was aware of the program. He advised that he had sent Ms. Sandra Ward to an
APS orientation meeting regarding the SES program. Mr. Waller advised that Ms. Ward was sent at the last
minute to bring the information back, because a substitute teacher would not be needed to backfield her
while she was at the meeting. Mr. Waller stated that he was aware the Assistant Principal Reid worked for
PCSS in this program, but he was unclear on who he thought was the PCSS site coordinator.
Mr. Waller stated that he was Indirectly aware of operational issues with PCSS. He stated that he
purchased gifts for a drawing from students who participated in the PCSS after-school program. That
drawing was held at a pep rally in December. Mr. Waller stated he was not aware of how the names were
determined for inclusion in the drawing. He stated that he was not aware of students signing an
attendance form/spreadsheet to participate in the drawing.
The last matter discussed in this interview was whether Mr. Waller had ever given cash to employee
Sajuana White for doing extra work. He advised he had not. Upon further discussion Mr. Waller did state
he had provided cash to Ms. White to help her out with her utility bills on one or two occasions,
3 Investigator Marc Lawson was also present during this interview.
Private & .Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School. System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
investigation and Research, This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
630
11
Mr. Waller was re-interviewed on May 10 for follow-up issues:
• when asked about payments to PCSS, Mr. Waller stated:
• He is not Involved in arrangements with PCSS on classroom rentals. He stated
that classroom rentals are handled between Facilities Services with PCSS.
• He is not involved in arrangements with PCSS on student transportation. He
stated that student transportation is handled by the Department of
Transportation with PCSS.
• He is not aware of or involved in any other payments to PCSS.
• When asked about the management of input into the SASI system, Mr. Waller stated:
• Ms. White has been at Parks for over one year as Secretary to the Assistant
Principal and SASI input coordinator (all). Mr. Waller stated that Ms. White is
still the SASI coordinator. When asked how Ms. White could still be SASI
coordinator without access to the SASI system, Mr, Waller stated that her
privileges had been removed because of an inappropriate actions and
insubordination with Ms. Thompson, Mr, Waller stated that Ms. Thompson is
now responsible for SASI input.
• He was not sure of Ms. White's weekly hours, but thought they were originally
27 hours per week. When asked about her current hours, he was aware they
had been reduced to 27 or 28.4 When asked why her hours were reduced he
stated to be in Sine with Title One rules.
4 Yes, the original and current "reduction" is inconsistent.
Private & Proprietary information for the At lanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research, This is & confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
631
12
Interview of Gregory Reid
Investigators Reginal Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Assistant Principal Gregory Reid on
March 1, 2006 at Parks Middle School. Mr. Reid provided the following information regarding
his role with the SES program provider Preferred Care School Services;
Mr. Reid advised that he started with PCSS at the beginning of the program. He was unclear as
to whether that was October or November of 2005. Mr. Reid stated that he was the site
coordinator and was paid $50 per hour for that role (he knew that teachers were paid
$25/hour). He stated his responsibilities included:
• Assigning class rolls
• Assigning students to classes
• Determining which teacher was assigned for what subject
• Observing classes
• Team teaching as needed
• Filling in for teachers as needed
Mr, Reid advised he was not responsible for:
• Reports to parents
p Student progress reports
• Attendance records for students or teachers.
• He advised that Mr. Selmon assigned this task to Ms. Thompson and/or Ms. White.
• Mr. Reid stated that 30-60 students participated in the program on any given day.
• He advised that Dr. Kiel provided tutoring before and after school under the PCSS
program.
When asked about the role of Ms. Sandra Ward, he advised that they worked together but he
was not aware of her official title. Mr. Reid acknowledged that he did not attend the APS
orientation on the SES program.
When asked about the December incentive drawing for PCSS student participants, Mr, Reid
stated he was not involved in any way ... not in the determination of the students included, the
drawing, or the gifts. He stated he was not present for the drawing.
Mr, Reid was re-interviewed on May 11th regarding Ms. Sajuana White's additional allegations
(see page 21 in tab 12). Mr. Reid advised that:
• He was not aware that her SASI duties had changed, but had directed Ms. White to
help with the year-end cleaning out of closets (see tab 15).
• He has never had a discussion with anyone at GDOL or otherwise about Ms. White's
social security number or her attempts for unemployment during the summers (see
tab 16).
o
lO
to
o
Private & Proprietary information for the Arlatita Public; School System — Office of Interna! Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product. co
632
13
Interview of Sandra Ward
Investigators Reginal Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Ms. Sandra Ward, SFA Facilitator, on
February 16, 2006 at Parks Middle School. Ms. Ward provided the following information on her
role with the SES program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Ms. Ward started with the program as a result of Mr. Waller sending her to the APS orientation
session for the SES program, Ms. Ward stated that she is not employed by PCSS and is not paid
by PCSS. She was aware that certified teachers were paid $25/hour for tutoring and that non-
certified persons were paid $15/hour for program support. She stated her "role" has been:
• To bring back the Information from the orientation session to the school
• Give forms to teachers for distribution to students for participation in the program, including a
parental permission form and list of providers
• Handing out application forms to teachers for participation as tutors with PCSS
• Touching base with Ms. White on program operations
• Interfacing with Mr. Selmon at PCSS
Ms. Ward stated that her role did not include:
• Giving instructions to teachers on the program's operation
• Being present during program hours
She advised that 70-98 students participated in the program. When asked about the role of Mr.
Reid, she advised that he was the program coordinator. It was her understanding that his
duties were to
• Oversee the building, including monitoring and walking around
» Back-field as a tutor in math when needed
• Help Ms. White
Ms. Ward said she felt the teachers were not being asked to do anything different from their
daily duties as certified teachers and did not see the need to go into details on program
operation. When asked about the role of Ms. White, she advised that Ms. White was
responsible for:
• Overseeing the program
• Giving out snacks
• Making sure that transitions took place in the building
Ms. Ward was asked about her knowledge of documentation previously requested by
Investigator Dukes on two occasions from Mr. Waller:
• Student sign-in sheets for attendance, including athletes
• Original SES provider list
• Forms showing the selection of PCSS by parents
• List of all teacher applications and acknowledgment letters to teachers for participation
• Original time sheets for teachers and Blank application to teachers
When asked why she participated in the program without compensation, Ms. Ward stated that
she knew when she changed schools that she would need to help out without compensation for
all support given in order to help the school improve. She stated that the school needs support.
Private & Proprietary information, for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal. Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
633
Interviews with Fabiola Aurelien
Investigators Regina! Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Ms. Fabiola Aurelein on February 12th
at her home and on February 17th at Parks Middle School. Ms. Aurelien provided the following
information on her role with the SES program provider Preferred Care School Services;
Ms. Aurelein stated that she has been a Math teacher at Parks Middle School for two years. She
stated her role with PCSS was as a math tutor. Ms. Aurelein stated that she thought there were
15 teachers serving as tutors. She stated that teachers signed-in with Ms. White (and later Ms.
Thompson) at the beginning of tine program each day. Ms. Aurelein stated that she was not
aware of any direct supervision of teachers in the program.
Ms. Aurelein was of the understanding that Ms. Sandra Ward was the program coordinator, until
she was recently chastised for calling Ms. Ward the program coordinator. She stated that she
had earlier shared concerns with Ms. Ward about the program:
• Never receiving request for progress reports in December 2005
• Asked to provide progress reports in February 2006 when she did not have the same students
each day
• Never advised to provide documentation of student attendance
• All participating teachers not included in meetings to review program procedures
Ms. Aurelien stated that she was called into a meeting with Ms. Sandra Ward and Bill Selman on
Friday, February 10th to terminate her services with PCSS since she was paid but did not tutor
students, because she would not provide progress reports. She stated that she advised them
she did tutor, but could not do progress reports since she did not see the same students
consistently. Ms. Aurelien stated that Ms. Ward took the led in the meeting and was very harsh
with her. She stated that she was confused on her status because at the end of the meeting
Mr. Selmon asked her not to "resign." During the February 17th interview, Ms. Aurelien stated
that at some point Mr. Waller had attempted to solicit her as program coordinator to "get things
straightened out."
Ms. Aurelien stated that she was a member of the design team and did not tutor on Monday's
when the design team met, but did sign-in for PCSS on Monday's along with other teachers.
She stated that Ms. Ward was aware of this practice since she was also a member of the design
team and in the room when the PCSS sign-in sheet was brought into the design team meeting
for teachers to sign-in.
When asked about allegations of cheating on the writing test, Ms. Aurelien stated that she was
included in a teacher meeting about this subject. At that meeting all persons were asked to
sign a sheet on whether they were aware of the allegations.5 Afterwards she was individually
called into Mr. Waller's office as part of his investigation into the allegations. Mr. Walter had a
tape recorder. Ms. Aurelien stated that she wanted someone else in the room as a witness and
Mr. Waller called in Dr. Kiel. She then answered Mr. Waller's questions. The conversation was
not taped. After Dr. Kiel left the room, Mr. Waller asked some hypothetical questions. Ms.
5 Ms, Aurelien was the only person present thai admitted to hearing about the allegations.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta {Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research, This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
634
15
Aurelien thought he was trying to see if he could count on her not to say certain things that
would incriminate him (Mr. Waller). Ms. Aurelien also stated that an unscheduled staff meeting
was held in which the Principal stated that "I know there are people who are unhappy here and
I'll take care of making sure that these people go on their way."
When asked about how someone couid access the test prior to test time, Ms. Aurelien stated
that there is general access to Dr. Kiel's office and that the tests are not sealed when the
teachers come to pick them up. She also stated that the week before the test teachers where
given specific instructions on how to prepare the students for the writing test.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
635
16
Interview with Anthony Tiller
Investigators Reginal Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Mr, Anthony Tiller on March 1, 2006 at
Parks Middle School. Mr. Tiller provided the following information on his role with the SES
program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Mr. Tiller is the in-school suspension coordinator. He stated that his role with PCSS was 50% as
a math tutor and 50% support. His support duties included monitoring the halls, securing the
doors, and escorting students to the bus. Mr. Tiller stated that his rate of pay was $25/hour.
When asked about program operations, Mr. Tiller stated that he understood Ms. Sandra Ward to
be the site coordinator. He stated that he interviewed for the position with Ms. Ward and Mr.
Waller. His current understanding is that Ms. Thompson has replaced Ms. Ward as site
coordinator.
He estimated that 5-8 teachers participate as tutors and an average of 20-25 students
participated in the program on a daily basis. Mr. Tiller stated that he has not done any student
performance reports.
Private & Proprietary information for the AUsmta Public School System — Office of Interna] Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research, " This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client wor.k product.
636
Interview with Tamika Butler
Investigator Reginal Dukes met with Ms. Tamika Butler on March 7, 2006 at Parks Middle
School. Ms. Butler provided the following information on her role with the SES program
provider Preferred Care School Services:
Ms. Butler is a language arts teacher at Parks Middle School.
Ms. Butler stated that she is not a tutor with PCSS. She stated that she is the cheerleaders'
coach and her knowledge of the program relates to the interfacing with athletes and
cheerleaders. Ms. Butler stated that athletes were forced to participate in the program in order
to be eligible to play sports. To her knowledge the athletes spent 15-20 minutes before
practice in tutoring sessions. Ms. Butler stated that cheerleaders were also forced to participate
in order to participate in this activity, "even if they were straight A students."
When asked about the December raffle, Ms. Butler stated that she was aware of the raffle. She
understood it to be an attendance incentive and that large gifts were awarded.
In regards to attendance documentation, Ms. Butler stated that she remembered a time that
Mr. Tiller came around for two days with attendance sheets for the basketball team and the
cheerleaders to sign. She stated that she initialed the form for the cheerleaders for January
10th, but refused to initial for January 9th she did not think the program was operating that day.
It was her understanding that the basketball team members did sign the attendance sheets for
attendance on both days.
Ms. Butler was also asked about her knowledge relating to the CRT test. She stated that she
was not aware of a tip sheet for the 8th grade writing exam. She stated that she was vaguely
aware of students stating that someone talked to them about what to focus on.
Ms. Butler said she does recall that after the test a special education student ran to a teacher
(Ms. Johnson) and stated that the test was exactly like the sheet they had studied from. Ms.
Butler also recalled that a student (Ashanti White) told her Mr. WaNer approached him during
the test to question one of his answers, specifically stating "are you sure you want to do that"
and asked him to change his answer.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School. System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research, This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
637
Interviews with Felicia Phillips
Investigators Reginal Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Ms, Felicia Phillips on February 17th,
2006 at Parks Middle School. Ms. Phillips provided the following information on her role with
the SES program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Ms. Phillips stated that she has been working with the PCSS programs since October or
November, 2005. Her role was as a math tutor.
When asked about program operations, Ms. Phillips stated that:
• After filling out the application, she did not receive an acceptance Setter. When
presented with a copy of the letter, Ms. Phillips stated she had never seen the
document.
• She did not receive anything in writing about her responsibilities, no curriculum
nor information about her hourly rate for her services
• She does not recall being invited to any program coordination meetings
• She did see the student participation forms signed by parents
• At times 2-3 teachers worked with one group of students at one time
• She understood that Ms. Sandra Ward was the program coordinator, but she
was not on-site during the program time.
• She was aware that Mr. Reid was involved with the program because of his
involvement in assembling students and doing some team teaching.
When asked specifically about her participation between November 28th - December 1st, Ms.
Phillips was not sure which days she worked. When shown her time sheet with some blacked
out areas, she was not aware of why certain parts were blacked out
Ms. Phillips stated that she did get the request for progress reports in late December, but was
confused and frustrated on what to do because of confusion on what students were included
and what was suppose to be tracked. She stated there were no names of students on the
forms provided. Mr. Phillips stated that Ms. Ward had commented on her frustration about
"people not doing what they were suppose to do" in regards to the progress reports.
At some point in December, Ms. Phillips stated that she made a written list of 10 concerns about
the program, but did not share them with Ms. Ward, She did participate in her first program
coordination meeting on Tuesday, February 14th and though duties were still not clear, it was a
positive start. Ms. Phillips stated that some teachers expressed that they were not willing to
continue working with the program until the problems were fixed. To her knowledge 20-23
students participated on February 13th.
Ms. Phillips also stated that she was aware that some parents wanted to pull their 6* grade
student out of the program because they were not getting the language arts tutoring that was
promised.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research, This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
638
19
Interview with Kelley Collins
Investigator Reginal Dukes met with Ms. Kelley Collins on March 16th, 2006 at Parks Middle
School. Ms. Collins provided the following information on her role with the SES program
provider Preferred Care School Services:
Ms. Collins is a language arts teacher at Parks Middle School, She has been employed with APS
for three years and at Parks for two years. Ms. Collins stated that she has worked with PCSS
since November 2005 as a language arts tutor. She stopped working for PCSS at the end of
January. When asked about program operations, Ms. Parks stated that:
• She was in an initial meeting were teachers were given grade level assignments for tutoring, but no
student lists
• She did receive a diagnostic test for administration
• The first week received packets for students to work from, no curriculum support after that
• Was not told to take daily student attendance, but did so at first.
• Sometimes there were no kids present to tutor
• She was a part of the school design team and did sign the PCSS time sheet during those Monday
meetings, as did other teachers
• Has not done any student progress reports
• Understood Ms. Sandra Ward to be die program coordinator, but she was not available during program
hours
• Estimated 30-60 students participated on a daily basis. Some of the fluctuation was due to when
athletes participated.
a recent group meeting with Ms. Ward and Mr. Selmon. Ms. Collins stated that in that meeting
teachers were told if they signed time sheets and did not have classes they committed fraud.
They were advised that someone had sent a letter about the fraud and this meeting was to
check on what was going on. Ms. Collins stated that she did not say anything about what she
thought. The meeting focused on progress reports, teacher pay, and the amount of students.
Ms, Collins stated that she was a part of the design team and did attend the Monday meetings.
Ms. Collins said she had a lot of students in the beginning of the program, but was down to 4-5.
She stated that she had been fulfilling her duties, but was not going to produce progress
reports. She stated she was not going to do the reports because she did not work with the
same kids all the time .... she just wanted to "wash her hands of the whole thing."
Ms. Collins stated that she was aware that Ms. Stacy Webb resigned under pressure and that it
was a great loss for the school. She stated that Ms. Webb did her job extremely well and was
helpful to others, even those teachers outside of her direct support responsibility for the math
department. Ms. Collins stated that she was aware Ms. Webb was escorted off the premises by
police and did not feel that Ms. Webb's behavior ever warranted such action.
Ms. Collins closed by stating that she felt the tutoring program could be more effective if it was
better organized. She is no longer associated with the program.
Private & Proprietary information for die Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product
639
20
Interview with Melanie Clark
On March 1, 2006, Investigators Regina! Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Ms. Melanie Clark at
Parks Middle School. Ms. Clark provided the following information on her role with the SES
program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Ms. Clark stated that she has been a paraprofessional at Parks Middle School for the last three
years.
Ms. Clark stated that she started with the PCSS program in December 2005. She stated that
her duties were:
• Being in the office to answer the phone for calls from parents
• Maintaining attendance sheets
• Notifying students when it was time to leave for the bus
Ms. Clark was not sure of her hourly rate, she stated she thought it was $ll/hour. She
understood that Mr. Reid was the program coordinator because he met witti the kids and
walked around the building.
Ms. Clark stated that she was not aware of Ms, SaJauna White's role. She stated that Ms.
Thompson has been responsible for keeping the time sheets since January 2006.
When asked about the December raffle, Ms. Clark stated that she was not aware of the raffle
but did recall the pep rally. She latter stated that she was responsible for creating the numbers
to identify the prizes. Ms. Clark stated that she did not attend the pep rally.
CO
in
CD
O
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix o
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product, to
CL
<
640
21
Interviews with SuJuana White
Investigators Reginal Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Ms. SuJuana White on February 12 &
17, 2006 at Parks Middle School. Follow-up conversations were also held with Ms. White. She
provided the following information on her role with the SES program provider Preferred Care
School Services:
Ms. White stated that she has been employed for a year and a half as the SASI clerk at Parks
Middle School. She stated that she worked for PCSS in the after-school program for two
months with the following responsibilities:
• General program secretary
• Keep time sheets for students (about 40) and teachers (10-12)
• Handing out snacks
• General program coordination in Ms. Ward's absence
It was her understanding that Ms. Sandra Ward was the program coordinator, but that Ms.
Ward was rarely available during the after-school program. Ms, Ward did take the time sheets
from her and fax to PCSS. Ms. White did not see the time sheets for Mr. Reid or Ms. Ward.
She was initially paid $25/hour for two weeks; her rate was reduced to $15/hour without notice.
When she inquired with Ms. Ward about her short pay, Ms. Ward advised that she was not a
certified teacher and therefore not eligible for the higher pay. Ms. White feit that other non-
certified teachers were paid at the higher rate, specifically Mr. Jackson and Mr. Tilier.
When asked about the December 2005 incentive drawing for PCSS participating students, she
advised that her role in that event was to prepare a spreadsheet with all student names and
boxes for the dates of the tutoring sessions. She advised that several students asked her why
they were required to sign this spreadsheet. The signing of the spreadsheet was before the
drawing. To her knowledge students were told to sign tine spreadsheet in order to enter the
drawing for the prizes. She did state that she did not hear Mr. Waller say this. It was her
understanding that Ms. Ward facilitated the students signing the spreadsheets. Ms. White also
stated that the PCSS student attendance sheets have been lost at least three times (see flow
chart).
Ms. White resigned from the PCSS program. She stated that she was called into a meeting with
Ms. Ward on February 10th in order to clear her name (Ms. White's):
• Teachers are alleging she allowed them to falsify time sheets. She stated that
she did not give time sheets to the teachers. She filled in the top information
and made copies for entering the time each week. That she (Ms. White) had
the teachers come to her to sign-in and sign-out each day. These records
were given to Ms. Ward and are now missing.
Private & Proprietary information far the A tlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resoluti on, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research, 'This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
641
Ms. White was also asked about her role in entering attendance data into the SASI system. She
specifically stated that:
• Mr. Walter had asked her to manipulate the attendance data and offered her $50 cash during a
meeting in which Ms. Ward was in attendance. She stated that she did not remove the absences as
requested.
• Teachers are not consistently showing suspended students as absent in all classes.
• Students are suspended longer than the maximum allowable 9 days,
• Student schedules are not being properly entered into the system thereby having a confusing situation
on where a student is suppose to be at any given time.
• She was required to work overtime without pay to keep up with the data input for attendance and
disciplinary actions.
• She was required to input grades into SASI even though this was not in her job description. Dr. Kiel
had those duties. She was also asked to create grades for missing data, which she refused.
• She has been removed from SASI duties because of her refusal to manipulate attendance and grades
data. But her SASI id# Is still being used by someone to input or change data.
• Her hours have been reduced because of her refusal to manipulate data,
• She has been threatened with termination for refusal to manipulate attendance and grades data by Mr.
Waller, Mr. Reid, and Dr. Kiel. Ms. Thompson is now responsible for entering SASI data.
• She was hospitalized for two weeks with high blood pressure due to the "work related stress in a
hostile work environment."
When asked who her direct supervisor is, she stated Mr. Reid the Assistant Principal. When
asked why she was having numerous disciplinary meetings with Mr. Waller, she stated she did
not know why. In one such meeting, Mr. Waller demanded that she ask Mr. Reid for a
performance evaluation. Ms, White stated that she refused and stated it was Mr. Reid's
responsibility to give her a performance evaluation regardless of if she asked. Mr. Reid was in
the meeting. She stated that this was one of several meetings in which Mr. Walier threatened
or intimidated her.
Since the last interview Ms. White has provided:
• A copy of an email she sent to Ms. Meredith Kaltman, APS Student Information
Support Manager, regarding her concerns about the SASI system data manipulation
at Parks Middle School. Ms. White also provided a copy of Ms. Kaltman's response
asking for more information and copying Mr. Waller on her request (see attachment
14).
• A statement regarding alleged retaliation by Mr. Waller in changing her work
assignments, though her title has not changed. She has been denied access to SASI
and is now responsible for cleaning closets. This has resulted in physical injury to
her. When she reported the injury, she was told no accident report forms were
available at Parks Middle School (see attachment 15).
• A statement regarding a call she overheard between Assistant Principal and a female
discussing Ms. White's unemployment claim that she had filed last year with the
Georgia Department of Labor, including repeating her social security number twice.
Mr. Reid's wife is an employee at the Georgia Department of Labor (see attachment
16).
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. 'Ibis is a confidential draft of Findings as attorney-client work product.
642
23
Student sign-in sheet versions
X
Version #1
November 2005
No sign-in sheets
Teachers wrote names
on blank paper
Given to Ms. White
"Gold envelope"
missing when returned
from illness
Version #2
December 2005
Waller directs White
to create spreadsheet
with names
White gave to Ward
Ward gives to Waller
Waller gives to Jackson
Lost ???
Version #3
December 2005
Version #4
Jan/Feb 2006???
Waller directs White
recreate spreadsheet
with names
White gave to Ward
Used for sign-in
for raffle
Now lost???
All students to
Cafeteria
New spreadsheet
<o
o
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation and Research, This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product co
a.
<
643
24
Interview with Alfred Kiel
Investigators Reginal Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Dr. Alfred Kiel on March 1, 2006 at
Parks Middle School. Dr. Kiel provided the following information on his role with the SE5
program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Dr. Kiel stated that he is an Instructional Learning Specialist at Parks Middle School, which
includes responsibilities for administration of the CRT test.
Dr. Kiel advised he had been with the PCSS program since the beginning in September or
October of 2005. He stated that his role in the program was as a tutor primarily for the athletes
before (7:30 am to 8:30 am) and after (4:30 pm to 6:30 pm) school under the PCSS contract.
Dr. Kiel advised that the athletes came to the tutoring sessions before sports practice in the
afternoon and their time in the program depended on the sports practice schedule. Dr. Kiel
stated that he did also tutor non-athletes after school. He stated he did not know what his
hourly rate was for this service.
When asked about program operations, Dr. Kiel stated that he understood that Ms. Sandra
Ward was the program coordinator.
Dr. Kiel was also questioned about his role in the administration of the CRT test. He stated
that he receives sealed packets with the test and maintains them in a locked safe until they are
distributed to teachers. Dr. Kiel stated there is not a study guide for the test and that no one
other than himself has access to the tests before he distributes them to the teachers. Dr. Kiel
stated that no one has approached him about advance access to the test. He stated that he
breaks the seal of the test packets the day before the tests are to be administered to sort and
label them for distribution to the teachers.
When asked about rumors of cheating on the test, Dr. Kiel stated that he had heard those
rumors. He also stated that he heard that information about the test was available on the
Internet. When asked about teacher statements that a study guide was provided for preparing
students for the test, Dr. Kiel stated that he had not seen nor distributed that document.
CD
o
9£
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Interna.! Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product. (O
<
644
25
Follow-up Interviews with 8th Grade Teachers
Investigator Reginal Dukes did follow-up with the 8th grade teachers regarding the 8th grade
writing test. On May 10th individual interviews were held with teachers: Damon Arnold, Crystal
Draper, and Doreath Wilson. All three stated that they had seen and received the tips in a
grade level meeting at Parks Middle School.
We were not able to interview Dorian Rodgers, who no longer works at Parks. We were not
able to interview Tanzy Lewis because she is on maternity leave.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. 'This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product,
645
26
Interview with Students at Parks Middle School
Investigator Regina! Dukes met individually with 13 students on March 1, 2006 at Parks Middle
School: _ STUDENT NAMES REDACTED
L The students were asked about two issues: (a) their
participation in the December raffle and (b) their knowledge about a tip sheet used in
preparation for the CRT writing test.
December Raffle
All students were aware of the raffle, Two students stated they were not included in the
drawing because of the low attendance in the program. One student said they were included in
the drawing even though they had low attendance, but did not win a prize.
The majority of the students stated they were not consistent in attending the tutoring sessions,
with the majority attending less than 25% of the time. Several students remembered being
called into the office or approached during class to sign a spreadsheet. They said they did as
they were told and initialed all boxes indicated by their names. Those who went to the office
stated Ms. Ward or Ms. White were the persons with the spreadsheet.
Writing Test
All students were aware of the tip sheet for the writing test. Most stated that they were
directed to practice responding to question #7 on the tip sheet in preparation for the writing
test. They also acknowledged that a very similar question was on the test. Some students
stated that they received the tip sheet before the Christmas holidays and were told to study
over the holidays, primarily those who received the tip sheet from Mr, Rodgers, Other students
stated they received the tip sheet a week or so before the test.
When asked who gave them the tip sheet, all students stated they received the tip sheet from
their language arts instructors (Mr. Rodgers mentioned most often, also Ms. Lewis and Ms.
Wilson).
One student did state that they were recently called into a meeting in the cafeteria with Mr.
Reid and Ms. Holloway about new tutorial sessions on Saturday. The student stated that this
investigation was not discussed In that meeting.
to
o
Private &. Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School. System — Office of Interna] Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work, product. CO
CL
<
646
Interview with Mr. Pitts
Investigator Reginal Dukes met with Mr. Pitts on January 17, 2006 at his office. The focus of
this interview was his meeting with Ms. Vicki Johnson and Principal Waller regarding the
distribution of the ATF holiday flyer at Parks Middle School. Mr. Pitts provided the following
information:
Mr. Pitts stated that he did visit Parks Middle School for a meeting. During that meeting he
stated that Mr. Waller made him aware of the flyer and asked whether he (Mr. Pitts) thought it
was appropriate for distribution at the school. Mr. Pitts stated that he did not think it was
appropriate to distribute the flyer with the handwritten message at the top for a meeting to
discuss issues at the school, he did think it was appropriate for advertising a holiday party. Mr-
Pitts stated that he advised Mr. Waller to call in the ATF representative to the meeting to
discuss the flyer.
Mr. Pitts stated that Ms. Young did come to the meeting and when he questioned her about the
handwritten note Ms. Young stated that she did not write the note. He also stated that he
advised her she could file a level 2 grievance with him if there were major concerns at the
school. Mr. Pitts stated when he asked her if she had any concerns about the school, Ms.
Young did not state any. "She did not say a word."
When asked if any subsequent concerns about Parks Middle School have come to his attention
since the flyer, Mr. Pitts noted only one concern regarding teacher evaluations. He stated this
was not within his scope of responsibilities. Mr. Pitts stated that he did implement a survey
after the flyer incident and that survey was "pretty positive." He did not provide a copy of the
survey or the results.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research, This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
647
28
Interview with Kelli Smith
Investigator Reginal Dukes met with Ms. Kelli Smith on 3anuary 17, 2006 at Parks Middle
School. The focus of this interview with Ms. Smith was her knowledge or involvement in the
management of the "sunshine fund" at Parks Middle School. Ms, Smith provided the following
information:
Ms. Smith stated that she is a 6 grade social studies teacher working at Parks Middle School
for the last 5 years. She has been with APS for 11 years.
When asked if she had inquired about bounced checks from the sunshine fund, Ms. Smith
advised that she had not made such an inquiry. She did state that she was present when April
Hadley was discussing concerns about the sunshine fund. Her recollection was that Ms. Hadley
was repeating a conversation she had with Melanie Clark. Ms. Smith was of the understanding
that Ms. Clark was responsible for collecting funds for the sunshine fund. She also indicated
that Ms. Brantley might also have knowledge of the sunshine fund operations.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
648
29
2005 Request for Supplemental Services — Parks Middle School/ PCSS provider6
Student Name
20057
2006
STUDENT NAMES REDACTED
Yes
Yes
|
No parent signature
Two applications
Yes
No parent signature
Two applications
Yes
Yes
.
No parent signature
Yes
No parent siQnatuns
Mo parent signature
Yes
Two forms in 2006, different
handwritinq on parent signatures
Yes
25
No parent signature
STUDENT
NAME
■■ ■
S REDACTED 4
-
Yes
Two forms
I
No parent signature
Yes
No parent signature
No parent signature
Yes
No parent signature
Is-
u-
— — -—^^ ^
6 List developed by investigator based copies of forms provided. o
7 Preferred Care was the only choice on ail these students' forms for both 2005 and 2006. a;
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Interna] Resolution, compiled by Phoenix o
investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product. c6
Q.
<
649
30
STUDENT
NAMF
Yes
Two applications, different
parents?
Yes
No parent signature
Vac
Yes
„
No parent signature
[ C3
No parent signature
No parent signature
No parent signature
75
STUDENT
Vac
ICS
No parent signature
Vac
I Cb
NAME
-
S REDACTED
TcS
No parent signature
No psrent signature
V&c
T cb
No parent signature
Yes
98
"'■ '" _L' "' ' ! — ■ ' — 1
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Infernal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation unci Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attomev-client work product, co
Cl
<
650
31
2006 Request for Supplemental Services — Parte Middle School/ PCSS provider8
Student Name
2006H
STUDENT NAMES REDACTED
Two forms, different parent signatures
No parent signature
25
STUDENT NAMES REDACTED
i
i
List developed fay investigator based on original of forms provided,
9 Preffered Care is the onfy provider indicated on all these students' forms.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product
tQ
Q
o
CO
CL
<
651
32
50
STUDENT
NAME
—
,S REDACTED —
—
Two forms, different parent signatures
75
STUDENT NAMES REDACTED
95+19=114
14 repeated from trie first semester
o
m
CO
o
I
Private & Proprietary information fertile Atlanta Public School System — Office of Interna) Resolution, compiled by Phoenix o
investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product. to
cl
<
652
Document requests to William Selmon
Investigator Dukes has made repeated requests to Mr. Bill Selmon at PCSS for the following
documents, which have not been received:
• Payroll records for PIWS teachers involved in the program to determine the services
for which they were paid, specifically for November 30th d December 21st.
• The canceled check we were told by Mr. Selmon was given to Ms. Ward to purchase
the gifts for the December pep rally.
Private & Proprietary information, for the A tlanta Public School. System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential draft of findings as attorney-client work product.
653
ViSilCr \ of 2
jjijfllMiiliWMiW
Fffsm: Kasjrw*!, Mentfitii Sent: Hen WJ^iXtf ito"i3ftM
To: Wftlce, Suktsnv*
Ce: wafer, Oi&teptrer
Sutfcj!***; j!&
Ms. Whifce-
Of course r remember you. I'm sorry that you have had such difficulties, but i
don't know how much I can heSp you. There are 3 issues that I do went to
address with you .
First, you have macte some serious allegations in your message. 1 have spoken
with Mr. Waller to try to gain some clarity on the situation, and have copied film
on this email,
Second, Rhonda was doing her Job as she has been told, Mr, Walter has full
control over who has access to the SASI data at the school. He tells us who can
have access and whose access should be restricted. We just complete the
actions as he requests. If you have any questions about that, please talk with
htm.
Finally, as I said, these are very serious allegations you have made. I need
specific incidents of illegal activities and falsification of records or data. Please
send nie dates thai: these events, occurred along with the names of the peoptei
Involved and the exact description of what occurred. The sooner I have that
information, the sooner I can take action.
Thank you for your cooperation in resolving these issues.
Meredith Kaftnxm
Student information Support Manager
Atlanta Public Schools
to
to
CO
o
o
CO
a.
<
654
1
PHi!je2of2
130 Trinity Avenue
404- 8. 02-2 735
w ww. apsl ,C..P.i:g/sa si
From: White, Su'lusna
Sent: Monday, April 30, 20G6 10:02 AM
Tb: tollman, Meredith
Su&jeet;
Importance: i-ligh
Good morning Meredith,
Ycli may not remember my name but oriue you r sad this eiraii you will remember ma anci jny situation, This is
Sujuana V*tte ovarii! Parks Middls Sdiagl. i have b&sn hsvin j Usviesw'rth so many inexpsitenteci users with
SASI at my school. Our attendance is the first and main issue. f he- teachers are takincj ttse attendance
accurately anci daily. However, i have noticed an increase in absences which lets ins fenow thai tlie attendance
is b*ing lak«n because We (yw suit! i) {anavt Ihsi if the teachers da rcoiopen up their eiassxp iotakstha
attendance it ;iutom;!ticB:ty makes the student present. At this point iny SASI rights have been teSten away from
ma and given to someone whom my principal calls a team player, (i can and will eaatorate mors with you in
person) Now I am seeing 3 lot of itisgal things happening here and i arrs lying low because i feel my job is on
the Sine but I am being forties to call Ms So your aSlentioa My SASI fights were snatch sway on Friday,
March 31 . £006 and I found out when I eaflfjrf it in to client support. ! Shert aaSiiid Rhomfe Malik who is very
familiar with all c? my concerns awl she was nonchalant about it and toid ire that she goS the oider to cancel
my SASI fights from my principal on Thursday and thai she did not know wiratwas suing oil. i ttien wem l» hir:i
{my principal) 3nd ssKed him was there a reason for nte not being abie'to access SASI . tie then toid me ha
would t3ll< to me later on about that. However, vva have people using SASS iog m and passwords of petiole who
™ longer work hare and/or Slave been sjoi« for whatever reasons (out sick for months). There are even issues
with FTE s nd ether programs and information that has been I'aisiliad. At this point I <tan know whaS you can do
bull jus! wanted to share this information with you to maioe me feel batter. Please contact it* as scon as yon
are available to dismiss my concerns untfi then I 3tn waiting patiently with our discipline biiiksmg and ma not
having a due as to whan ami what to da. All school year I have bean supportive of Rhonda Malik and her
advice end support but at (his point I dent smsi anyone and f need aome eleararrca, I apakjgteefor such a long
email tout t am so overwhelmed tw what I'm seeing and experiencing until I Mad to search further Rsan Rhonda. I
■ook forward t» hsahng from aiid/or meeS'iig with you scon.
CO
to
CO
o
I
O
I
CO
Q.
<
655
PHOENIX RESEARCH & INVESTIGATIONS, LLC
CASE ACTIVITY LOG
CASE NO: Atlanta Public School - Parks Middle School
Date
PI Initials
Activity
Hours
Milage
1/10/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Chris Waller @ .1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA.
2
33
i/10/2006
RJD ..
Intrv w/ Kelly Smith @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW Atlanta,
GA.
2
0
1/17/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Mr. Pitts @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW Atlanta,
GA.
2
0
2/12/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ SuJuana White @ her home. (* RD & ML)
' • 4
72
2/12/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Fabiofa Aurelien @ her home. (* RD & ML)
6
44
2/16/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Sandra Ward @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA. (* RD & ML)
4
66
2/17/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ SuJuana White @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA. (* RD & ML)
4
66
2/17/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Fabibla Aurelien @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA. (* RD & ML)
4
0
2/17/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Chris Waller @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA.
2
0
2/17/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Felicia Phillips @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA. (* RD & ML)
4
0
3/1/2006-
RJD
Intrv w/ Gregory Reid @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA. (* RD & ML)
4
66
3/1/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Alfred Kiel @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW Atlanta,
GA. (* RD & ML)
4
0
3/1/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Anthony Tiller @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA.
4
0
3/1/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ thirteen students (
STUDENT NAMES REDACTED
) @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA.
6
0
3/1/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Melanie Clark @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA.
2
0
3/7/2006
RJD
Inliv w/ Tamlka Butler @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA.
2
33
3/16/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Kelly Collins @ 1090 Windsor Str, SW
Atlanta, GA..
2
33
656
GOSA_APS_DUKES 000085
5/5/2006
RJD
Prepared first draft of Investigative Report
■' 3
0-
c/innnnfi
RID
Met w/ Dr Hall Mr Pitts Nk M Few ffi) 130 Trinitv
Avp Atlanta ftA
nvc^ rvuuiiLu/ una
1
RJD
Tntrv w/' Damnn Arnold fYvotTil nranf* and Dnrt^ath
Wilson £3 1090 Windsor Str SW Atlanta GA
4
33
5/11/2006
RJD
Intrv w/ Greaorv Reid ffi) 1090 Windsor Str SW
Atlanta GA
1
33
6/30/2006
RJD
Prenared final draft of Investtaatlve Renort and
delivered to 13Q Trinitv Ave. Atlanta, GA.
4
26
Total
69
531
• Note: Two Investigators were authorized by DP-G; second investigator, Marc
Lawson.
GOSA_APS_DUKES 000086
657
Confidential
Report of Investigation
For
Atlanta Public Schools
Parks Middle School
Prepared by:
Investigator Reginal J. Dukes
Phoenix Research & Investigations/ LLC
June 30, 2006
Private & Proprietary information -for the Atlanta Public School System — Office onnternal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation aud Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as filtomey-client work product.
CM
i-
(O
(D
O
■
o
a.
<
658
Table of Contents
Page
A.
Summary of Investigation
3
B.
Investigative Details
4
C.
Conclusion
7
D. Attachments
1. Summary of issues from initial investigation of first communication
2. Outline of issues from investigation of subsequent communications
3. Interview of Christopher Waller
4. Interview of Gregory Reid
5. Interview of Sandra Ward
6. Interview of Fabiola Aurelien
7. Interview of Anthony Tiller
8. Interview of Tamika Butler
9. Interview of Felicia Phillips
10. Interview of Kelley Collins
11. Interview of Melanie Clark
12. Interview of Sujuana White
13. Row chart of student attendance documentation process
14. Sujuana White email to SASI Project Manager on concerns
15. Sujuana White statement of change in duties and resulting injury
16. Sujuana White statement of Mr. Reid's call to someone to interfere with Ms. White's past/future
unemployment status
17. Interview of Alfred Kiel
18. Follow-up interviews with 8th grade teachers
19. Interviews of Students
20. Interview of Mr, Pitts
21. Interview of Kelll Smith
22. List of PCSS students 200 S (first semester)
23. List of PCSS students 2006 (second semester)
24. Pending documents not received from PCSS
25. Check from PCSS for pep rally gifts
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
659
Report of Investigation — Parks Middle School
Summary of basis for investigation
This inquiry commenced on January 10, 2006 with the receipt of an email from the Atlanta
Federation of Teachers, sometime in late December 2005. The concerns expressed at that time
were vague and nonspecific and did not rise to the level of any policy violations. Initially, it was
decided that an inquiry be made to determined if there was more information that would give us an
understanding as to exactly what was occurring at Parks Middle School.
Sometime around January 13, 2006, a second piece of communication (letter) arrived, via U.S. Mail,
for Ms. Sheryl Freeman in the Office of Internal Resolution. This letter had some very specific
allegations:
(a) citing some operation discrepancies In the Supplemental Educational Services (SE5)
after school tutorial program at Parks Middle School;
(b) allegations of manipulation of the SASI system attendance (cfass XP); and
(c) numerous instances of questionable managerial practices by Principal Waller and
other staff members.
The third letter was' received sometime prior to January 18, 2006. It contained information of
possible cheating on the eighth grade-writing exam. Both letters were anonymous and the email
from AFT did not reveal their source or author of information.
Copies of these communications were provided to Investigator Dukes, after which he held
interviews with members of the faculty and staff at Parks Middle School. A summary of each of
.those interviews is included in the attachments to this report.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Interna] Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation ami Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
660
4
Investigative Details
The investigation initially focused on the issues raised in the first communication1, but was refocused
to concentrate on the four issues in the second and third anonymous communications:
- Supplemental Educational Services After School Tutorial Program '
- SASI data system
- 8th grade writing test
- Principal's managerial practices
(11 Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Afterschool Tutorial Program
The investigation found that parents were not given a choice of providers for this program:
• During the selection process of the SES providers, students were not given the complete
package, which should have included:
o a letter to parent(s) with instructions,
o a list of providers
o the request form for supplemental services (on ail the Request for
Supplemental Services forms for Parks Middle School, PCSS is the first and
only choice. It is written in with a different handwriting from the rest of the
form in all cases.)
• This practice has continued with the distribution of application forms on March 9, 2006.
The investigation found that teachers did not have written instructions or curriculum for participating
in the program:
• No written instructions could be found. The ad hoc program coordinator stated that no
written instructions were provided to the teachers.
• It was determined that Assistant Principal Reid is the paid program coordinator for the
afterschool program, but Ms. Sandra Ward was the unpaid coordinator for the program.
Ms. Ward was not full-time and her lack of availability during the program time was of
concern to several teachers and staff. Ms. Ward was available during the school day
and for a short time after school for some coordination. The teachers and staff
participating in the program considered her the program coordinator and did not
approach Mr. Reid on their concerns, Ms. Ward was sent to the initial program
overview by the Principal and has been working with this specific provider since October
2005.
m
CD
1 See attachment #1
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, complied by Phoenix
investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
661
• The teachers did not work with the same student from one day to the next, making
progress reports difficult
« Some teachers working in the program did not always remain on campus during the after
school hours of the operation, however, they were allowed to sign in, Some were
encouraged to sign in and allowed to attend faculty meetings and design team meetings
during those hours,
• There appeared, according to records, to be a large number of support persons working the
program. These persons had little or no roll in providing tutorial services to students.
The investigation found that student participation was not regularly documented:
• Student attendance was not documented on a daily bases, attendance sheets for the 2005
sessions were carried to regular class sessions by staff members (December 2005) in an
effort: to get reports to the site provider (Preferred Care School Services), Students were
asked to sign the attendance sheets without any verification of their attendance or
enrollment in the program.
• Timesheets for teachers and students' attendance sheets were submitted to Atlanta Public
Schools, External Programs for December 20th and 21st, 2005, these were days that the
sessions were canceled, and no one participated, student(s) nor teachersfs).
• Of the 96 students on the official list of certified students, approximately half were not
eligible to participate.
• The records on student participation have been "lost." There is a lack of consensus on
the number of students that are participating in the program. There is concern raised
by staff and students on documentation of participation in the program.
• There is an allegation that students were given prizes to incent them to falsify
documentation about participation in the program. During the December pep rally,
names of students eligible to participate in the program were pulled from a hat and
prizes awarded included Play Stations. The students had earlier been called to the
office to sign an attendance spreadsheet, allegedly with different ink pens.
We repeatedly requested and did not receive documentation from Preferred Care School
Services regarding payroll records for PMS teachers involved in the program to determine the
services for which they were paid, We did receive a copy of the check for $324 given to Ms,
Ward to purchase the gifts for the pep rally.
In follow-up discussions with Mr. Waller we were advised that another APS department handles
arrangements with PCSS for classroom rentals and student transportation, and that he is not
aware of any other payments to PMS by PCSS outside of the tutoring fees.
Private Sl Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Interna) Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Rese;irch. This is a confidential statement of Findings as attorney-client work, product.
662
SASI data system
The investigation found allegations of manipulation of student attendance and student grades in
the SASI data system. Specific allegations are that:
- Suspended students are not properly documented as absent in all classes
- The SASI clerk was directed by the Principal to change attendance data to reduce
absences
- The SASI clerk was directed by the Instructional Learning Specialist to create student
grades for data missing from teachers in order to meet the report card deadline
- The SASI clerk has been changed but her access number is still being used
We also found that Ms. White had been removed from her duties as SASI coordinator and her
access to that system has been removed since early May. Her hours have also been reduced,
Ms. Whites interview statement shows here concerns about manipulation of student data.
8th grade writing test
The investigation found that a tip sheet was provided to all 8th grade students, as early as prior
to the Christmas break for the January writing test, The tip sheet Included sample questions
that were the same or very similar to the questions on the actual test. The tip sheet was given
to the students by their language arts teachers, most noted was Mr. Rodgers. In reviewing the
website identified as the source of the tip sheet, we could find not such document on the
website.
Four of the six language arts teachers were interviewed: Lewis, Wilson, Arnold, and Draper.
We could not locate Rodgers who has left employment at APS, and Lewis is on maternity leave.
In addition, one teacher stated that a student came to her about the Principal asking him to
change one of his answers on the test.
Principal's Managerial practices
The investigation did not focus on managerial style or practices, The investigation did find that:
- Some employees feel they have been threatened by the principal, assistant principal,
and/or the educational instructional specialist in regards to the after school program
performance reports and the SASI data input
- There is general discontent among the teachers and the students about the perceived
disorganized and dishonest manner in which the after school program has been
managed, and they feel that the Principal has been Involved in the process
- One employee has been hospftalized for two weeks due to high blood pressure. She
indicated this medical condition was due to stress from a hostile work environment.
This is the same hourly employee who has indicated she was required to work
overtime without pay to maintain her job.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of hifenia] Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Jnvesligulioti ami .Research, This is a cosrfidentiaj statement of findings as aKumey-cKetit work product
663
7
Conclusion
Based on these investigative findings, we conclude that:
Preferred Care School Services
• Principal Waller is aware of and involved in the daily operations of the SES Afterschool
Program run by Preferred Care School Services. He was involved in:
• the selection of the ad hoc program coordinator, Ms, Sandra Ward
• the selection of some of the teachers as tutors
• the supervision of the support staff, during school hours and afterschool
• purchase of gifts for a raffle to incent students to attend to program
• Principal Waller is aware of the operational issues with the PCSS program. He has
been involved in:
• Meetings with teachers
■* Meetings with support staff
• Meetings with PCSS staff
• Purchase of gifts to help Improve attendance in the program
• There was no evidence that Principal Waiier is being compensated by PCSS.
• The current after school program run by Preferred Care School Services is poorly
organized and poorly implemented. This has caused frustration with teachers and
students.
• The documentation for teacher participation and student participation is not based on
actual participation by either. The poor program implementation makes it impossible
to determine who participated and when.
SASI data system
Based on the investigative findings, we conclude that there is reason for concern about the
accuracy of the attendance and grades input into the SASI system at Parks Middle School.
Further computer forensic Investigation would be needed to determine the veracity of this
concern starting with:
• tracking how suspended students have been entered for the school year and
• back-up documentation on all grades entered for the first semester.
8th Grade Writing Test
Based on the investigative findings, we conclude that students were coached on the topics that
were actually on the formal writing exam. The language arts teacher most mentioned in
providing this information is no longer at the school. The investigation did not determine how
he gained access to this information. We do also conclude that there is reason for concern
about the securing of these tests before the exam at Parks Middle School.
We also conclude that further investigation is needed on the second-hand information that the
School Principal interceded during the test to make students change test answers.
This investigation did not include addressing the managerial practices of the school Principal,
but the original and expanded issues that were investigated raise concerns about the climate at
Parks Middle School. »
£
o
I
a:
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation mid-Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product. &
o.
<
664
s
Attachment 1
Issues raised
Allegations
Persons interviewed
1. Sunshine fund
Checks received for death or illness In the family were
bouncing because of mismanagement of the "sunshine
fund."
1/10 Chris Waller
1/10 Kelll Smith
2. Birthday party
Certain teachers were asked to leave dass during
instructional time to attend a birthday party for the
school principal.
3/10 Chris Waller
3. Nepotism
The school principal has hired his brother-in-fsw and
cousins as employees at the school In violation of
system policy.
1/10 Chris Waller
4. ATF flyer
A flyer was circulated from the teachers union at the
school for a meeting to discuss concerns at the school.
1/10 Chris Waller
1/17 Mr. Pitts
Sunshine fund
Investigators interviewed PMS staff to determine who manages the sunshine fund and how it operates. The focus was on determining if checks
received from the sunshine fund for death or illness in the family were returned from insufficient funds. During the interview staff members
indicated that Melanie Clark and April Hadley were managing the program, while the school principal indicated that Ms. Hide and Ms. McColtugh
were managing the program.
There was consensus that the sunshine fund comes from voluntary contributions by school staff for distribution to school staff in times of illness
or death in the Family, No written procedures were found. This investigation was terminated at the direction of APS given that the sunshine
fund is not a system program and to focus on the issues raised in the second communication.
Birthday party
Investigators interviewed PMS staff to determine If and when the party happened; and who was invited. The focus was on determining if
teachers were allowed or required to leave class during Instructional time and if there was selectively in teachers invited.
During the Interview of the school principal it was determined that a "surprise" birthday party for him had been coordinated by his wife at the
school on December la. The school principal Indicated that only non-instructional staff attended the party and teachers were invited after the
party to come to the conference room during their breaks to share fn the refreshments. This Investigation was terminated at the direction of
APS to focus on the issues raised in the second communication.
Nepotism
Investigators Interviewed PMS Principal to determine if he had hired any relatives as staff at Parks Middle School, The focus was to determine if
APS system policy was violated on hiring of relatives,
During the Interview of the principal he stated that he had not hired his brother-in-law, cousins, or any other relatives at Parks Middle 5chool.
He also stated that the hiring of cousins was not In violation of APS system policy. The person specifically considered to be a relative was Ms.
Sandra Ward. This investigation was terminated at the direction of APS to focus on the issues raised w\ the second communication.
ATF Fiver
Investigators interviewed PMS staff to determine If the fyer was circulated and what were the underlying concerns. The focus was to
determine If a meeting was called and held, and what were the reasons for concern.
It was determined that the flyer was circulated at the school for a holiday party. It was determried that a handwritten note was added to the
printed flyer indicating that the party would include a discussion of concerns at the school, It could not be determined who added the
handwritten note, but it appears to have been on all flyers distributed. The party/meeting was held on December 16ft There was a discrepancy a>
on statements regarding who attended the December meeting with the union representative to discuss the flyer. This investigation was £
terminated at the direction of APS to focus on the Issues raised In the second communication. g
{£
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal .Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
Q_
<
665
9
Attachment 2
2nd letter issues
AEIegations
Persons interviewed2
1, After school tutoring
program
a. Parents did not have a choice In
selecting the afterschooi tutorinq provider,
Reviewed parent forms
b. The person in charge of managing the
person, was not the same person being
paid to manage the program.
2/12 SuJuana White 2/12 Fabiola Aurelten
2/15 Sandra Ward 2/17 Chris Waller
2/17 Sajuana White 2/17 Fabiola Aurelien
3/1 Gregory Reid 3/1 .Sorrja Thompson
3/1 Alfred Kiel 3/1 Anthony Tiller
3/1 Melanie Clark
c. The teachers who participated did not
receive instruction on program operations.
2/12 Fabiola Aurelien 2/17 Fabiola Aurelien
2/17 Chris Waller 2/17 Felicia Phillips
3/16 Kelley Collins
d. The student program participation was
falsified.
2/12 SuJuana White 2/12 Fabiola Aurelien
2/17 Chris Waller 2/17 SuJuana White
2/17 Felicia Phillips 3/1 Gregory Reid
3/1 Alfred Net 3/1 Anthony Tiller
3/7 Tamika Butler 3/16 Kelley Collins
?7?
Students fsee footnote)
e. Teachers and staff participants were
not paid equally nor based on actual
participation
2/12 Fabiola Aurelien 2/17 SuJuana White
3/1 Gregory Reid 3/1 Sonja Thompson
3/1 Anthony Tiller 3/1 Melanie Clark
f. threats
2/12 Fabiola Aureiien
2/17 SuJuana White
1. SASI documentation
a. suspended students are not
documented in the attendance system
2/12 SuJuana White
b. students are suspended more than 9
days per incident
2/12 SuJuana White
c. staff paid/threatened to manlputete
SASI attendance data
2/12 SuJuana White
d. staff threatened to manipulate SASI
grades data
2/12 SuJuana White
e. student scheduled not updated
properly regarding in confusion on Where
students are and problems with
attendance documentation
2/12 SuJuana White
3. Study tips with writing
prompts
Students were given actual test questions | 2/12 Fabiola Aureilen
prior to formal testing. j 3/1 Alfred Kiei
3/7 Tamika Butler
j 3/1 Students
a
„ — , — „ as
' These persons were questioned about issues relating to the allegation, not whether they agreed or disagreed with the g
allegation, ^
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School. System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attomey-cHent work product. ^
<
666
Interview of Christopher Wailer
10
Investigator Reglnal Dukes met with Mr. Christopher Waller on January 10, 2006 and February
17, 2006 at Parks Middle School. Mr. Waller provided the following information:
Mr. Waller is employed for one year with the Atlanta Public School System as Principal of Parks
Middle School. On January 10th, Mr. Waller was asked about four issues arising out of the first
ATF emafl:
(1) Mr. Waller was asked about his knowledge about the operation of the "sunshine fund" at Parks Middle
School. He advised that he was aware of the existence of the fund, but not aware on how it operates,
(2) Mr, Waller was asked about his knowledge of teachers leaving students during instructional time to
attend a birthday party in his honor. He advised that there was a surprise birthday party on December 1,
2005 in his honor. His wife coordinated the party. Mr. Waller advised that only non-instructional staff was
in attendance, and that teachers were invited over the PA system to share in the refreshments during their
planning period.
(3) Mr. Waller was asked whether he had hired any relatives as employees at Parks Middle School in
violation of APS nepotism policy. He advised that he had hired no direct relatives (as defined by APS), nor
had he hired anyone who lived with him that was not a relative. Mr. Waller made the point that cousins
are not direct relatives under the APS nepotism policy.
(4) Mr. Waller was asked about the distribution of an ATF flyer promoting a Christmas holiday party that
would also include discussion of concerns about issues at the school. He advised that he was aware of the
flyer, and that on December 16th he and Mr. Pitts met with Ms. Vicki Johnson, the ATF representative at
the school to discuss the flyer. Mr. Waller advised that any concerns are a result of him being the new
Principal and his decisions as such.
Mr. Waller was interviewed again on February 17th on another issue3, specifically about his
knowledge of the supplemental educational services provided by Preferred Care School Services
(PCSS):
Mr, Waller advised that he was aware of the program. He advised that be had sent Ms, Sandra Ward to an
APS orientation meeting regarding the SES program. Mr. Waller advised that Ms. Ward was sent at the last
minute to bring the information back, because a substitute teacher would not be needed to backfield her
while she was at the meeting, Mr. Waller stated that he was aware the Assistant Principal Reid worked for
PCSS in this program, but he was unclear on who he thought was the PCSS site coordinator.
Mr. Waller stated that he was indirectly aware of operational issues with PCSS. He stated that he
purchased gifts for a drawing from students who participated in the PCSS after-school program. That
drawing was held at a pep rally in December, Mr. Waller stated he was not aware of how the names were
determined for inclusion in the drawing. He stated that he was not aware of students signing an
attendance form/spreadsheet to participate in the drawing.
The last matter discussed In this interview was whether Mr. Waller had ever given cash to employee
Sajuana White for doing extra work. He advised he had not: Upon further discussion Mr, Waller did state
he had provided cash to Ms. White to help her out with her utility bills on one or two occasions.
3 Investigator Marc Lawson was also present during this interview. ^
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product. ^
<
667
11
Mr, Waller was re-Interviewed on May 10 for follow-up issues:
• when asked about payments to PCSS, Mr, Waller stated;
• He is not involved in arrangements with PCSS on classroom rentals. He stated
that classroom rentals are handled between Facilities Services with PCSS.
« He is not involved in arrangements with PCSS on student transportation. He
stated that the Department of Transportation with PCSS handles student
transportation.
• He is not aware of or involved in any other payments to PCSS,
• When asked about the management of input into the SASI system, Mr. Waller stated:
• Ms, White has been at Parks for over one year as Secretary to the Assistant
Principal and SASI Input coordinator (all). Mr. Waiter stated that Ms. White is
still the SASI coordinator. When asked how could Ms, White still be SASI
coordinator without access to the SASI system, Mr. Waller stated that her
privileges had been removed because of an inappropriate actions and
Insubordination with Ms. Thompson, Mr. Waller stated that Ms. Thompson is
now responsible for SASIinput.
• He was not sure of Ms. White's weekly hours, but thought they were originally
27 hours per week. When asked about her current hours, he was aware they
had been reduced to 27 or 28.4 When asked why her hours were reduced he
stated to be in line with Title One rules.
4 Yes, the original and current "reduction" is inconsistent.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of (ntemnJ Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
668
Interview of Gregory Reid
Investigators Reginat Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Assistant Principal Gregory Reid on
March 1, 2Q06 at Parks Middle School. Mr. Reid provided the following information regarding
his rote with the SES program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Mr. Reid advised that he started with PCSS at the beginning of the program. He was unclear as
to whether that was October or November of 2005. Mr. Reid stated that he was the site
coordinator and was paid $50 per hour for that role (he knew that teachers were paid
$25/hour). He stated his responsibilities included;
• Assigning class rolls
• Assigning students to classes
• Determining which teacher was assigned for what subject
• Observing classes
» Team teaching as needed
» Filling in for teachers as needed
Mr, Reid advised he was not responsible for:
» Reports to parents
• Student progress reports
• Attendance records for students or teachers.
• He advised that Mr, Selmon assigned this task to Ms.. Thompson and/or Ms. white.
• Mr. Reid stated that 30-60 students participated in the program on any given day.
• . He advised that Dr. Kiel provided tutoring before and after school under the PCSS
program.
When asked about the role of Ms. Sandra Ward, he advised that they worked together but he
was not aware of her official title, Mr. Reid acknowledged that he did not attend the APS
orientation on the SES program.
When asked about the December Incentive drawing for PCSS student participants, Mr. Reid
stated he was not involved in any way ... not in the determination of the students included, the
drawing, or the gifts. He stated he was not present for the drawing.
Mr. Reid was re-interviewed on May 11th regarding Ms. Sajuana White's additional allegations
(see page 21 In tab 12). Mr. Reid advised that:
• He was not aware that her SASI duties had changed, but had directed Ms. White to
help with the year-end cleaning out of closets (see tab 15).
* He has never had a discussion with anyone at GDOL or otherwise about Ms. White's
social security number or her attempts for unemployment during the summers (see
tab 16).
Private & Proprietary information for the AUanta Public School System Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
669
Interview of Sandra Ward
13
Investigators Regina! Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Ms, Sandra Ward, SFA Facilitator, on
February 16f 2006 at Parks Middle School. Ms. Ward provided the following information on her
role with the SES program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Ms. Ward started with the program as a result of Mr, Waller sending her to the APS orientation
session for the SES program. Ms. Ward stated that she is not employed by PCSS and is not paid
by PCSS. She was aware that certified teachers were paid $25/hour for tutoring and that non-
certified persons were paid $15/hour for program support. She stated her "role" has been:
• To bring back the information from the orientation session to the school
• Give forms to teachers for distribution to students for participation in the program, including a
parental permission form and list of providers
• Handing out application forms to teachers for participation as tutors with PCSS
• Touching base with Ms. White on program operations
• Interfacing with Mr. Selmon at PC5S
Ms. Ward stated that her role did not include:
• Giving instructions to teachers on the program's operation
» Being present during program hours
She advised that 70-98 students participated in the program. When asked about the role of Mr.
Reid, she advised that he was the program coordinator. It was her understanding that his
duties were to
• Oversee the building, including monitoring and walking around
■ Back-field as a tutor in math when needed
• Help Ms. White
Ms. Ward said she felt the teachers were not being asked to do anything different from their
daily duties as certified teachers and did not see the need to go into details on program
operation. When asked about the role of Ms. White, she advised that Ms. White was
responsible for:
• Overseeing the program
» Giving out snacks
• Making sure that transitions took place in the building
Ms. Ward was asked about her knowledge of documentation previously requested by
Investigator Dukes on two occasions from Mr. Waller:
• Student sign-in sheets for attendance, including athletes
• Original SES, provider list
• Forms showing the selection of PCSS by parents
• List of all teacher applications and acknowledgment letters to teachers for participation
• Original time sheets for teachers and Blank application to teachers
When asked why she participated in the program without compensation, Ms. Ward stated that
she knew when she changed schools that she would need to help out without compensation for
all support given in order to help the school improve. She stated that the school needs support.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
investigation und Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
670
Interviews wrth Fabiola Aurelien
Investigators Reginal Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Ms, Fabiola Aurelein on February 12th
at her home and on February 17th at Parks Middle School. Ms. Aurelien provided the following
information on her role with the SES program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Ms. Aurelein stated that she has been a Math teacher at Parks Middle School for two years. She
stated her role with PCSS was as a math tutor. Ms, Aurelein stated that she thought there were
15 teachers serving as tutors. She stated that teachers signed-in with Ms. White (and later Ms.
Thompson) at the beginning of the program each day, Ms. Aurelein stated ttiat she was not
aware of any direct supervision of teachers in the program.
Ms. Aurelein was of the understanding that Ms. Sandra Ward was the program coordinator, until
she was recently chastised for calling Ms. Ward the program coordinator. She stated that she
had earlier shared concerns with Ms. Ward about the program:
• Never receiving request for progress reports in December 2005
• Asked to provide progress reports in February 2006 when she did not have the same students
each day
• Never advised to provide documentation of student attendance
» All participating teachers not Included in meetings to review program procedures
Ms. Aurelien stated that she was called into a meeting with Ms. Sandra Ward and Bill Selman on
Friday, February 10th to terminate her services with PCSS since she was paid but did not tutor
students, because she would not provide progress reports, She stated that she advised them
she did tutor, but could not do progress reports since she did not see the same students
consistently, Ms. Aurelien stated that Ms. Ward took the led in the meeting and was very harsh
with her. She stated that she was confused on her status because at the end of the meeting
Mr. Seimon asked her not to "resign." During the February 17m interview, Ms. Aurelien stated
that at some point Mr. Waller had attempted to solicit her as program coordinator to "get things
straightened out."
Ms. Aurelien stated that she was a member of the design team and did not tutor on Monday's
when the design team met, but did sign-in for PCSS on Monday's along with other teachers.
She stated that Ms. Ward was aware of this practice since she was also a member of the design
team and in the room when the PCSS sign-in sheet was brought into the design team meeting
for teachers to sign-in.
When asked about allegations of cheating on the writing testr Ms. Aurelien stated that she was
included In a teacher meeting about this subject. At that meeting all persons were asked to
sign a sheet on whether they were aware of the allegations,5 Afterwards she was individually
called into Mr. Waller's office as part of his investigation into the allegations. Mr. Waller had a
tape recorder. Ms. Aurelien stated that she wanted someone else in the room as a witness and
Mr. Waller called in Dr. Kiel. She then answered Mr. Waller's questions. The conversation was
not taped. After Dr. Kiel left the room, Mr. Wailer asked some hypothetical questions, Ms.
5 Ms. Aurelien was the only person present that admitted to hearing about the allegations.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Pubiic School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This in n confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
671
15
Aurelien thought he was trying to see if he could count on her not to say certain things that
woufd incriminate him (Mr. Waller). Ms, Aurelien also stated that an unscheduled staff meeting
was held in which the Principal stated that "I know there are people who are unhappy here and
I'll take care of making sure that these people go on their way."
When asked about how someone could access the test prior to test time, Ms. Aurelien stated
that there is general access to Dr. Kiel's office and that the tests are not sealed when the
teachers come to pick them up. She a!so stated that the week before the test teachers where
given specific instructions on how to prepare the students for the writing test.
Private Sc Proprietory information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
672
16
Interview with Anthony Tiller
Investigators Reginal Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Mr. Anthony Tiller on March 1, 2005 at
Parks Middle School. Mr. Tiller provided the following information on his role with the SES
program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Mr. Tiller is the in-school suspension coordinator. He stated that his role with PCSS was 50% as
a math tutor and 50% support. His support duties included monitoring the hails, securing the
doors, and escorting students to the bus. Mr. Tiller stated that his rate of pay was $25/hour.
When asked about program operations, Mr. Tiller stated that he understood Ms, Sandra Ward to
be the site coordinator. He stated that he interviewed for the position with Ms. Ward and Mr.
Waller. His current understanding is that Ms. Thompson has replaced Ms. Ward as site
coordinator.
He estimated that 5-8 teachers participate as tutors and an average of 20-25 students
participated in the program on a daily basis. Mr. Tiller stated that he has not done any student
performance reports.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
673
Interview with Tamika Butler
17
Investigator Reginal Dukes met with Ms. Tamika Butler on March 7, 2006 at Parks Middle
School. Ms. Butler provided the following information on her role with the SES program
provider Preferred Care School Services:
Ms. Butler is a language arts teacher at Parks Middle School
Ms. Butler stated that she is not a tutor with PCSS. She stated that she is the cheerleaders'
coach and her knowledge of the program relates to the interfacing with athletes and
cheerleaders. Ms. Butler stated that athletes were forced to participate in the program in order
to be eligible to play sports. To her knowledge the athletes spent 15-20 minutes before
practice in tutoring sessions, Ms. Butler stated that cheerleaders were also forced to participate
in order to participate in this activity, "even if they were straight A students."
When asked about the December raffle, Ms. Butler stated that she was aware of the raffle. She
understood it to be an attendance incentive and that large gifts were awarded.
In regards to attendance documentation, Ms. Butler stated that she remembered a time that
Mr. Tiller came around for two days with attendance sheets for the basketball team and the
cheerleaders to sign. She stated that she initialed the form for the cheerleaders for January
10th, but refused to initial for January 9th she did not think the program was operating that day.
It was her understanding that the basketball team members did sign the attendance sheets for
attendance on both days.
Ms. Butler was also asked about her knowledge relating to the CRT test. She stated that she
was not aware of a tip sheet for die 8th grade writing exam. She stated that she was vaguely
aware of students stating that someone talked to them about what to focus on.
Ms. Butler said she does recall that after the test a special education student ran to a teacher
(Ms. Johnson) and stated that the test was exactly like the sheet they had studied from. Ms.
Butler also recalled that a student (Ashanti White) told her Mr, Wailer approached him during
the test to question one of his answers, specifically stating "are you sure you want to do that"
and asked him to change his answer.
CO
CO
CD
to
Private Sl Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation and Research. 1 his is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product, oj
a.
<
674
18
Interviews with Felicia Phillips
Investigators Regirta! Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Ms. Felicia Phillips on February 17th,
2006 at Parks Middle School. Ms, Phillips provided the following information on her role with
the SES program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Ms. Phillips stated that she has been working with the PCSS programs since October or
November, 2005. Her role was as a math tutor.
When asked about program operations, Ms, Phillips stated that;
• After filling out the application, she did not receive an acceptance letter. When
presented with a copy of the letter, Ms. Phillips stated she had never seen the
document.
• She did not receive anything in writing about her responsibilities, no curriculum
nor information about her hourly rate for her services
• She does not recall being invited to any program coordination meetings
• She did see the student participation forms signed by parents
• At times 2-3 teachers worked with one group of students at one time
• She understood that Ms. Sandra Ward was the program coordinator, but she
was not on-site during the program time,
• She was aware that Mr. Reid was involved with the program because of his
involvement in assembling students and doing some team teaching.
When asked specifically about her participation between November 28th - December 1st, Ms.
Phillips was not sure which days she worked. When shown her time sheet with some blacked
out areas, she was not aware of why certain parts were blacked out.
Ms. Phillips stated that she did get the request for progress reports In late December, but was
confused and frustrated on what to do because of confusion on what students were Included
and what was suppose to be tracked. She stated there were no names of students on the
forms provided. Mr. Phillips stated that Ms. Ward had commented on her frustration about
"people not doing what they were suppose to do" in regards to the progress reports.
At some point in December, Ms. Phillips stated that she made a written list of 10 concerns about
the program, but did not share them with Ms. Ward. She did participate in her first program
coordination meeting on Tuesday, February 14th and though duties were still not clear, it was a
positive start. Ms. Phillips stated that some teachers expressed that they were not willing to
continue working with the program until the problems were fixed. To her knowledge 20-23
students participated on February 13th.
Ms. Phillips also stated that she was aware that some parents wanted to pull their 6th grade
student out of the program because they were not getting the language arts tutoring that was
promised.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System -- Office of Internal Resolution, complied by Phoenix
Investigation ami Research. 'This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
675
19
Interview with Kelley Collins
Investigator Reginal Dukes met with Ms, Kelley Collins on March 16th, 2006 at Parks Middle
School. Ms. Collins provided the following information on her role with the SES program
provider Preferred Care School Services:
Ms, Collins is a language arts teacher at Parks Middle School. She has been employed with APS
for three years and at Parks for two years. Ms. Collins stated that she has worked with PCSS
since November 2005 as a language arts tutor. She stopped working for PCSS at the end of
January. When asked about program operations, Ms. Parks stated that:
• She was in an initial meeting were teachers were given grade level assignments for tutoring, but no
student lists
• She did receive a diagnostic test for administration
• The first week received packets for students to work from, no curriculum support after that
« Was not told to take daily student attendance, but did so at first.
• Sometimes there were no kids present to tutor
• She was a part of the school design team and did sign the PCSS time sheet during those Monday
meetings, as did other teachers
• Has not done any student progress reports
• Understood Ms. Sandra Ward to be the program coordinator, but she was not available during program
hours
• Estimated 30-60 students participated on a dally basis. Some of the fluctuation was due to when
athletes participated.
a recent group meeting with Ms. Ward and Mr. Selmon. Ms. Collins stated that in that meeting
teachers were told if they signed time sheets and did not have classes they committed fraud.
They were advised that someone had sent a letter about the fraud and this meeting was to
check on what was going on. Ms. Collins stated that she did not say anything about what she
thought. The meeting focused on progress reports, teacher pay, and the amount of students.
Ms. Collins stated that she was a part of the design team and did attend the Monday meetings,
Ms. Collins said she had a lot of students in the beginning of the program, but was down to 4-5.
She stated that she had been fulfilling her duties, but was not going to produce progress
reports. She stated she was not going to do the reports because she did not work with the
same kids all the time ... she just wanted to "wash her hands of the whole thing."
Ms. Collins stated that she was aware that Ms, Stacy Webb resigned under pressure and that it
was a great loss for the school. She stated that Ms, Webb did her job extremely well and was
helpful to others, even those teachers outside of her direct support responsibility for the math
department Ms. Collins stated that she was aware Ms. Webb was escorted off the premises by
police and did not feel that Ms. Webb's behavior ever warranted such action.
Ms. Collins dosed by stating that she felt the tutoring program could be more effective if it was
better organized. She is no longer associated with the program.
Private & Proprietary information, for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled hy Phoenix
investigation and Research, This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product
676
20
Interview with Melanie Clark
Investigator Regina! Dukes met with Ms. Melanie Clark on March I, 2006 at Parks Middle
School. Ms. Clark provided the following information on her role with the SES program provider
Preferred Care School Services;
Ms. Clark stated that she has been a paraprofessional at Parks Middle School for the last three
years. _
Ms. Clark stated that she started with the PCSS program in December 2005. She stated that
her duties were:
• Being in the office to answer the phone for calls from parents
• Maintaining attendance sheets
• Notifying students when it was time to leave for the bus
Ms. Clark was not sure of her hourly rate, she stated she thought it was $ll/hour. She
understood that Mr. Reid was the program coordinator because he met with the kids and
walked around the building.
Ms. Clark stated that she was not aware of Ms. SaJauna White's role. She stated that Ms.
Thompson has been responsible for keeping the time sheets since January 2006.
When asked about the December raffle, Ms. Clark stated that she was not aware of the raffle
but did recall the pep rally. She latter stated that she was responsible for creating the numbers
to identify the prizes. Ms. Clark stated that she did not attend the pep rally.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Interna) Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a coafitfcntial statement of findings as allurney-dietit work product.
677
21
Interviews with SuJuana White
Investigators Reginal Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Ms. SuJuana White on February 12 &
17, 2006 at Parks Middle School. Follow-up conversations were also held with Ms. White. She
provided the following information on her role with the SES program provider Preferred Care
School Services:
Ms. White stated that she has been employed for a year and a half as the SASI clerk at Parks
Middle School. She stated that she worked for PCSS in the after-school program for two
months with the following responsibilities:
• General program secretary
• Keep time sheets for students (about 40) and teachers (10-12)
• Handing out snacks
• General program coordination in Ms. Ward's absence
It was her understanding that Ms. Sandra Ward was the program coordinator, but that Ms.
Ward was rarely available during the after-school program. Ms. Ward did take the time sheets
from her and fax to PCSS, Ms. White did not see the time sheets for Mr. Reid or Ms, Ward.
She was initially paid $25/hour for two weeks, her rate was reduced to $15/hour without notice.
When she inquired with Ms, Ward about her short pay, Ms. Ward advised that she was not a
certified teacher and therefore not eligible for the higher pay. Ms. White felt that other non-
certified teachers were paid at the higher rate, specifically Mr. Jackson and Mr. Tiller.
When asked about the December 2005 incentive drawing for PCSS participating students, she
advised that her role in that event was to prepare a spreadsheet with all student names and
boxes for the dates of the tutoring sessions. She advised that several students asked her why
they were required to sign this spreadsheet. The signing of the spreadsheet was before the
drawing. To her knowledge students were told to sign the spreadsheet in order to enter the
drawing for the prizes. She did state that she did not hear Mr. Waller say this. It was her
understanding that Ms. Ward facilitated the students signing the spreadsheets. Ms. White also
stated that the PCSS student attendance sheets have been lost at least three times (see flow
chart).
Ms. White resigned from the PCSS program, She stated that she was called into a meeting with
Ms. Ward on February 10th in order to clear her name (Ms. White's):
• Teachers are alleging she allowed them to falsify time sheets. She stated that
she did not give time sheets to the teachers. She filled In the top information
and made copies for entering the time each week. That she (Ms. White) had
the teachers come to her to sign-in and sign-out each day. These records
were given to Ms. Ward and are now missing.
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Interna) Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product.
678
Ms. White was also asked about her role in entering attendance data into the SASr system. She
specifically stated that
• Mr. Waller had askect her to manipulate the attendance data and offered her $50 cash during a
meeting in which Ms. Ward was in attendance. She stated that she did not remove the absences as
requested.
• Teachers are not consistently showing suspended students as absent in all classes.
• Students are suspended longer than the maximum allowable 9 days.
• Student schedules are nut being properly entered into the system thereby having a confusing situation
on where a student is suppose to be at any given time.
• She was required to work overtime without pay to keep up with the data input for attendance and
disciplinary actions.
• She was required to input grades into SASI even though this was not in her job description. Dr. Kiel
had those duties. She was also asked to create grades for missing data, which she refused.
« She has been removed from SASI duties because of her refusal to manipulate attendance and grades
data, But her SASI id# is still being used by someone to input or change data.
• Her hours have been reduced because of her refusal to manipulate data.
• She has been threatened with termination for refusal to manipulate attendance and grades data by Mr.
Waller, Mr. Reid, and Dr. Kiel. Ms. Thompson is now responsible for entering SASI data.
• She was hospitalized for two weeks with high blood pressure due to the "work related stress in a
hostile work environment,"
When asked who is her direct supervisor, she stated Mr. Reid the Assistant Principal. When
asked why she was having numerous disciplinary meetings with Mr. Waller, she stated she did
not know why. In one such meeting, Mr. Waller demanded that she ask Mr. Reid for a
performance evaluation. Ms. White stated that she refused and stated it was Mr. Reid's
responsibility to give her a performance evaluation regardless of if she asked. Mr. Reid was In
the meeting. She stated that this was one of several meetings in which Mr. Waller threatened
or intimidated her.
Since the last interview Ms. White has provided:
• A copy of an email she sent to Ms. Meredith Kaitman, APS Student Information
Support Manager, regarding her concerns about the SASI system data manipulation
at Parks Middie School. Ms. White also provided a copy of Ms. Kaltman's response
asking for more information and copying Mr. Waller on her request (see attachment
14).
• A statement regarding alleged retaliation by Mr. Waller in changing her work
assignments, though her title has not changed. She has been denied access to SASI
and is now responsible for cleaning closets. This has resulted in physical injury to
her. When she reported the Injury, she was told no accident report forms were
available at Parks Middle School (see attachment 15).
• A statement regarding a call she overheard between Assistant Principal and a female
discussing Ms. White's unemployment claim that she had filed last year with the
Georgia Department of Labor, including repeating her social security number twice.
Mr. Reid's wife is an employee at the Georgia Department of Labor (see attachment
16).
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of foldings as attorney-client work product
679
23
Student sign-in sheet versions
Version #1
November 2005
No sign-in sheets
Teachers wrote names
on blank paper
Given to Ms. White
"Gold envelope"
missing when returned
from illness
Version #2
December 2005
Waller directs While
to create spreadsheet
with names
White gave to Ward
Ward gives to Waller
Version #3
December 2005
Waller gives to Jackson
Lost ???
Waller directs White
recreate spreadsheet
with names
White gave to Ward
Used for sign-in
for raffle
Now lost???
Version #4
Jan/Feb 2006???
All students to
Cafeteria
New spreadsheet
cn
CO
CO
o
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School- System — Office of Interna] Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product. dy
680
Page 1 of 2
White^i[|uana IMMMMWMI, , , , „ , m
From; Kaltman, Meredith Sent: Mori 4/10/ZOD6 10:23 AM
To: White, Sujuana
Cc Waller, Christopher
Subject: RE:
Attachments:
Ms, White-
Of course I remember you. I'm sorry that you have had such difficulties, but I
don't know how much I can help you. There are 3 issues that I do want to
address with you.
First, you have made some serious allegations in your message. I have spoken
with Mr. Waller to try to gain some clarity on the situation, and have copied him
on this email.
Second, Rhonda was doing her job as she has been told. Mr. Waller has full
control over who has access to the SASI data at the school. He tells us who can
have access and whose access should be restricted. We just complete the
actions as he requests. If you have any questions about that, please talk with
him.
Finally, as I said, these are very serious allegations you have made. I need
specific incidents of illegal activities and falsification of records or data. Please
send me dates that these events occurred along with the names of the people
involved and the exact description of what occurred. The sooner I have that
information, the sooner I can take action.
Thank you for your cooperation in resolving these issues.
Meredith Kaltman I
O
Student Information Support Manager 0=
to
Atlanta Public Schools %
681
Page 2 of 2
130 Trinity Avenue
404-802-2735
www.apsit.org/sasi
From: White, Sujuana
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:02 AM
To: Kaltman, Meredith
Subject:
Importance: High
Good morning Meredith,
You may not remember my name but once you read this email you will remember me and my situation. This Is
Sujuana White over at Parks Middfe School. I have been having issues with so many inexperienced users with
SASI at my school. Our attendance is the first and main issue, The teachers are taking the attendance
accurately and daily. However, I have noticed an increase in absences which lets me know that the attendance
is being taken because we (you and i) know that if the tsach&rs do not open up their classxp to take the
attendance it automatically makes the student present. At this point my SASI rights have been taken away from
me and given to someone whom my principal calls a team player. {I can and will elaborate more with you in
person) Now I am seeing a lot of illegal things happening here and I am lying low because 1 feel my job is on
the iine but I am being forced to call this to your attention. My SASI rights were snatched away on Friday,
March 31. 2006 and t found out when I called it in to client support. I then called Rhonda Malik who is very
familiar with all of my concerns and she was nonchalant about it and told ma that she got the order to cancel
my SASI rights from my principal on Thursday and that she did not know what was going on. t then went to him
{my principal) and asked him was there a reason forme not being able to access SASI . He then told me he
would talk to me later on about that. However, we have people using SASI log in and passwords of people who
no longer work here and/or have been gone for whatever reasons {out sick for months), There are even issues
with FTE and other programs and information that has been falsified. At this point I don't know what you can do
but I just wanted to share this Information with you to make me feel better. Please contact me as soon as you
are available to. discuss my concerns until then I am waiting patiently with Dur discipline building and me not
having a clue as ta when and what to do. All school year I have been supportive of Rhonda Malik and her
advice and support but at this point l don't trust anyone and I need some clearance, i apologize for such a long
email but I am so overwhelmed by what I'm seeing and experiencing until ! had to search further than Rhonda I
look forward to hearing from and/or meeting with you soon.
<D
O)
<o
O
a.
o
(h
a.
<
682
2 00k
Old >mkiDa
iMJQUO Eu> a§k (Ofc. ^ .UfecJ QlL
MxLlIU. d& JiB. v Ouo v:i.
_Almd4^
iftcutL, . ....
hftg£ -M m£ uyMd
683
6
CO
o>
(D
CD
O
DC
o
(0
<
684
J
vJraJto. MXjvi)- ^ti^maxp
Ha . _
^r-^U QfrJm pV&frr. ^^^^
685
cfcb ok} ^w* tb
t&O^LpQ«i t6 -fcSUCLO. .
.... . v. JVirticrt OuK^.jyiid
. ims, J^uwWsJ) (to 4> 0
qJIm^ Iujxo
o
CO
686
ok^SL fas- (2u^ Qju>
_ , _ ^^jlxWsl do Afiivu _ .
, ^ [r „. Sj^vj^ij^ Achfc&i siAiaw
U£ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^'^iA>)
l^ fMS) Gud-
' ' Qivui UJiMx? aw.
a
<o
o
■
O
CO
EL
<
687
AJi e^Ai (wb 4 Lxuu)
Reiki'
. OUmjLn aid
aw
ISM l\$M kMjD
Qui
o
to
a
<
688
Interview with Alfred Kiel
Investigators Reginal Dukes and Marc Lawson met with Dr. Alfred Kiel on March 1, 2006 at
Parks Middle School. Dr. Kiel provided the following information on his role with the SES
program provider Preferred Care School Services:
Dr. Kiel stated that he is an Instructional Learning Specialist at Parks Middle School, which
includes responsibilities for administration of the CRT test
Dr. Kiel advised he had been with the PCSS program since the beginning in September or
October of 2005. He stated that his role in the program was as a tutor primarily for the athletes
before (7:30 am to 8:30 am) and after (4:30 pm to 6:30 pm) school under the PCSS contract
Dr. Kiel advised that the athletes came to the tutoring sessions before sports practice in the
afternoon and their time in the program depended on the sports practice schedule. Dr, Kiel
stated that he did also tutor non-athletes after school. He stated he did not know what his
hourly rate was for this service.
When asked about program operations, Dr. Kiel stated that he understood that Ms. Sandra
Ward was the program coordinator.
Dr. Kiel was also questioned about his role in the administration of the CRT test He stated
that he receives sealed packets with the test and maintains them in a locked safe until they are
distributed to teachers. Dr. Kiel stated there is not a study guide for the test and that no one
other than himself has access to the tests before he distributes them to the teachers. Dr. Kiel
stated that no one has approached htm about advance access to the test. He stated that he
breaks the seal of the test packets the day before the tests are to be administered to sort and
label them for distribution to the teachers.
When asked about rumors of cheating on the test, Dr. Kiel stated that he had heard those
rumors. He also stated that he heard that information about the test was available on the
Internet. When asked about teacher statements that a study guide was provided for preparing
students for the test, Dr. Kiel stated that he had not seen nor distributed that document
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attomey-cfieni work product.
689
25
Follow-up Interviews with 8th Grade Teachers
Investigator Reginal Dukes did follow-up with the 8th grade teachers regarding the 8th grade
writing test. On May 10"1 individual interviews were held with teachers: Damon Arnold, Crystal
Draper, and Dareath Wilson. All three stated that they had seen and received the tips in a
grade level meeting at Parks Middle School,
We were not able to interview Dorian Rodgers, who no longer works at Parks. We were not
able to interview Tanzy Lewis because she is on maternity leave.
S
r-
o
Private & Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix q
Investigation, and Research, This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney -client work product, ^
690
26
F
Interview with Students at Parks Middle School
Investigator Reginal Dukes met individually with 13 students on March 1, 2006 at Parks Middle
School: <
STUDENT NAMES REDACTED
The students were asked about two issues: (a) their
participation in the December raffle and (b) their knowledge about a tip sheet used in
preparation for the CRT writing test.
December Raffle
All students were aware of the raffle. Two students stated they were not included in the
drawing because of the low attendance in the program. One student said they were included in
the drawing even though they had low attendance, but did not win a prize.
The majority of the students stated they were not consistent In attending the tutoring sessions,
with the majority attending less than 25% of the time. Several students remembered being
called into the office or approached during class to sign a spreadsheet, They said they did as
they were told and initialed all boxes indicated by their names. Those who went to the office
stated Ms. Ward or Ms. White were the persons with the spreadsheet.
Writing Test
All students were aware of the tip sheet for the writing test. Most stated that they were
directed to practice responding to question #7 on the tip sheet in preparation for the writing
test. They also acknowledged that a very similar question was on the test Some students
stated that they received the tip sheet before the Christmas holidays and were told to study
over the holidays, primarily those who received the tip sheet from Mr. Rodgers. Other students
stated they received the tip sheet a week or so before the test.
When asked who gave them the tip sheet, all students stated they received the tip sheet from
their language arts instructors (Mr. Rodgers mentioned most often, also Ms. Lewis and Ms.
Wilson).
One student did state that they were recently called into a meeting in the cafeteria with Mr.
Reid and Ms. Holioway about new tutorial sessions on Saturday. The student stated that this
investigation was not discussed in that meeting.
to
o
Private &. Proprietary information for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix %
Investigation and Research. This is a confidential statement of findings as attorney-client work product. J,
691
Interview with Mr. Pitts
Investigator Reginal Dukes met with Mr. Pitts on January 17, 2006 at his office. The focus of
this interview was his meeting with Ms. Vicki Johnson and Principal Waller regarding the
distribution of the ATF holiday flyer at Parks Middle School. Mr, Pitts provided the following
information:
Mr. Pitts stated that he did visit Parks Middle School for a meeting. During that meeting he
stated that Mr. Waller made him aware of the flyer and asked whether he (Mr. Pitts) thought it
was appropriate for distribution at the school. Mr. Pitts stated that he did not think it was
appropriate to distribute the flyer with the handwritten message at the top for a meeting to
discuss issues at the school, he did think it was appropriate for advertising a holiday party. Mr.
Pitts stated that he advised Mr. Waller to call in the ATF representative to the meeting to
discuss the flyer.
Mr. Pitts stated that Ms. Young did come to the meeting and when he questioned her about the
handwritten note Ms. Young stated that she did not write the note. He also stated that he
advised her she could file a level 2 grievance with him if there were major concerns at the
school. Mr. Pitts stated when he asked her if she had any concerns about the school, Ms.
Young did not state any. "She did not say a word."
When asked if any subsequent concerns about Parks Middle School have come to his attention
since the flyer, Mr. Pitts noted only one concern regarding teacher evaluations. He stated this
was not within his scope of responsibilities. Mr. Pitts stated that he did Implement a survey
after the flyer incident and that survey was "pretty positive." He did not provide a copy of the
survey or the results,
Private & Proprietary information, for the Atlanta Public School System — Office of Internal Resolution, compiled by Phoenix
Investigation und Research. This is a. confidential statement offirjUings as attorney-dim) work product.
692
Elementary School Comparison for 2008 to 2009 CRCT
CD
CD
CO
■RED is equal to a decline in performance on CRCT.
! Dark Green is equal to improved performance (4% or higher) on CRCT.
i Bright Green is equal to slight improver) performance (l%-3%) on CRCT.
Orange is equal to constant performance (0%) on CRCT.
Black Font = 25% or more of the classes within the grade-level are flagged.
Hot
Jfof %of sections
Classes Classes with a
SchooIName
KIMBERLY ELEM
BOLTON ACADEM
GROVE PARK EL
HERNDON ELEME
WILLIAMS ELEM
PARKSIDE ELEM
TOOMER ELEM EN
MILES ELEMENT
BETHUNE ELEME
MAJONE5ELE
CLEVELAND ELE
ADAMSVILLE EL
HERITAGE ACAD
CASCADE ELEME
CW HILL ELEM
SLATER ELEMEN
DOBBS ELEMENT
THOMASVIUE H
FAIN ELEMENTA
COOEELEMENTA
EAST LAKE ELE
BEECHER HILLS
BEMTEEN ELEME
HUMPHRIES ELE
HUTCHINSON EL
WHITE ELEMENT
DEERWOOD ACAD
ft OT
Flagged
H fi£"G
SRT
Classes
_WTR
_WTR
1
60
7
11.7K
4
69
11
15.9%
4
75
lr-
20.0%
1
54
11
20.4%
4
54
11
20.4%
3
75
16
21.3%
3
42
9
21.4%
1
60
13
21.7%
x
78
18
23.1%
1
78
18
23.1%
2
59
18
26.1%
1
72
20
27.8%
2
78
22
28.2%
1
66
19
28.8%
3
51
15
29.4%
2
99
30
30.3%
2
90
30
33.3%
2
87
34
39.1%
1
78
31
39.7%
3
54
22
40.7%
3
r.O
21
42.0%
1
54
23
42.0%
2
51
22
43.1%
2
45
21
46.7%
2
66
31
47.0%
4
57
27
47.4%
1
90
43
47.8%
or more
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
»
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
4
2
1
2
3
0
1
4
2
AYP
D(5)
•HJ
Adequate
D(5)
Nl (No AYP)
Adequate
(NO AYP)
D(S)
D(S)
D(5)
0(5)
D(5)
D(6)
D(3)
0(5)
0(5)
D (3)
0(1)
A'.wquatr (Made
avt)
D<8]
D(7)
0(5)
0(7)
0(5)
D(5)
AVI-)
0(5)
Adequate (Made
AYP)
Target
19%
30%
•S
.'PL
-t
12
17
is
37%
-7
i
0
6
S
21
22%
-11
li
3
-IS
■a
-4
52%
10
34
36
no
33
46
7%
•m
*
8
5
26%
'-/ '
- -
•1
0
-3
26%
:)
-4
19%
56%
-IF
-ii
-S
15%
-e
-3
-7
3
-4
41%
-7
-27
{ It,
G3%
'„
7
9
6
78%
m
3
4
44%
~k
.
33%
5
-5
-5
3
2
10
63%
4
4
-2
8
12
4
33%
0
A,
s
9
17
19
41%
■ & S
i
-7
2
6
-5:
41%
635S
0
3
3
~~]
52%
6
10
0
1
8
81%
1
5
-X
74%
-7
9
■6.
-13
-IS
26%
3
■ — •
•10
i
0
2
70%
*
74%
•1
1
:
8
-IS
-8
10
-4
-12
-8
-2
-2
20
-1
-3
1
1
-6
0
2
-1
31
0
-3
7
5
-7
16
7
0
7
5
12
-6
■9
-3
22
6
35
7
11
.4
IS 7 11
4g
■m
-i
18
-2
-5
&
! s
m
20
3
28
RPA
Updated: 2/18/10
GOSA APS MCKEE 000003
Elementary School Comparison for 2008 to 2009 CRCT
_] RED is equal to a decline in performance on CRCT.
Dark Green is equal to improved performance (4% or higher) on CRCT.
Bright Green is equal to slight improved performance (l%-3%) on CRCT.
Orange is equal to constant performance (0%) on CRCT.
Black Font = 25% or more of the classes within the grade-level are flagged.
sot
# of % of sections
Classes Cesses with a
#of Flagged Fieggetl mean of 10
SchooIlMame
5RT
Classes
_WTFt
_wth
or more
AVP
Target
FINCH ELEMENT
1
75
36
48.0%
0
D(3)
7.2%
-6
-14
-24
-s
■0
-9
2
-5
-8
5 1
-1.
12
.
F1CKETT ELEME
1
72
37
51.4K
1
D(5)
63%
-4
-16
-6
s
-S
-S
12
2
15
6
7
1
~5 .
-3
-2
WEST MAW OR EL
1
51
28
54.9%
4
D (5)
93%
•1
1
1
-3
-5
-s
12
4
8
11
8
30
7
2
9
BOYD ELEMENTA
4
57
32
56.1%
i
9(7)
37%
-1
-1
-7
3
12
7
-4
2.
X\
jtl ■
i-Tf
_-18:_
0
D H STANTON E
2
48
28
5B.3K
0
D (9)
63%
45
-S
-1
0
2
-IS
0
-1
-s
-ii
3 1 -4
i<r
WHITEFOORDEL
3
54
32
59.3%
0
D(5)
44%
•4
-10
-10
s
5'
-1
-1
_:4_
0 I
4
19
WOODSON ELEME
4
GO
38
63.394
1
D (5)
44%
3
S
1
-1
1
23
-is
-s
4
>7 i
2
10
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
G6
42
53.6%
3
D (5)
52%
3
7
7
6
18
IS
1*1
5 -23
3
5
6
PERKERSON ELE
1
72
48
66.7K
4
D (1)
74%
15
13
6
7
13
2
20
KB
37
5
47
BLALOCK ELEME
4
39
26
GG.7K
1
D (4)
89%
4
S
8
1
8
7
16
7
11
27
3
1
5
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
75
51
68.0%
9
D (5)
G7%
9
10
9
-8
" -2
8
13
4
2
3
-3 ;
9
7
DUNBAR ELEMEN
2
51
35
68. 652
7
eon
67%
11
13
3
S
9
1
4
6
28
-35
-i?
17
-13
-26
13
CONNALLV ELEM
1
78
55
70.5%
7
D (6)
52%
6
1
S
10
1 4
-8
-8
-3
1
2
5
2
-a
10
CAPITOL VIEW
2
4S
34
70.B%
5
D (7)
74%
-6
0 ! 4L
-5
4
r
\ -1
1
4
f
1
1
1
0
0
9
VENETIAN HILL
1
69
52
75.4K
r)
D (5)
70%
0
2
2
0
5
6
-S
-13
2
10
"4
14
1
USHER ELEMENT
4'
51
AO
78.4%
s
□ (5)
48%
11
10
11
-2
-9
-1
0 1
-2
.4
5
3
17
FL5TANTON
4
42
35
83.3%
s
0(7)
85%
8
16
14
2
1
L-r
-4
-S
.0
6
11
10
,-10 |
1
_4S_
PE1TON FOREST
1
72
62
ec.i%
7
□ (5)
93%
2
3
0
4
8
3
2
9
22
e r
6 1
-1
5
% !
3
11
GIDEONS ELEME
2
69
61
88.4%
7
D (G)
48%
-7
-4
-§
-S i 2 1
-3
5
-S
0
3 j
0
' 3
RPA
Updated: 2/18/10
GOSA_APS_MCKEE 000004
Middle School CRCT Comparison for 200S to 2009.
]RED is equal to a decline in performance on CRCT.
!Dark Green is equal to improved performance (4% or higher) on CRCT.
; Bright Green is equal to slight improved performance (l%-3%) on CRCT.
Orange is equal to constant performance (0%) on CRCT.
Black Font = 25% or more of the classes within the grade-level are flagged,
if of
sections
#of
with a
Classes
% of Classes mean of 10
■*-
if of
Flaggedl_
F!aggec)_WT or more
School Kame
SRT
Classes
WTR
R
erasures
AYP
Target
RDS
LAS
MA6
RD7
LA7
MA7
RDS
LAS MAS
YOUNG MIDDLE
1
114
13
11.4%
0
ojii
6354
3
7?
^ 1
5
s 27 ;
Adequate
LONG MIDDLES
2
97
12
12.4%
0
(marie AYP)
56%
HARPER ARCHER
4
141
34
24.1%
15
1MI (4) No AYP
52%
0
38
2 tifa \
BENJAMIN S CA
4
30
9
30.0%
0
NA
NA
13
13 31 ;
COAN MIDDLE S
3
51
16
31.1%
e
0®
15%
•12
MA
45
Ml (10) Mo
CRIMHIGHSCH
OHS
3
1
33.3%
0
AYP
NA
Adequate
KENNEDY MIDDL
1
79
42
53.2%
l
(made AYP)
63%
3
5
9
i
3
11
12
S 11 !
Nl (G) made
TURNER MIDDLE
4
S3
34
5<l.0%
3
AYP
78%
15
17
46
G
3
14
4 22
PARKS MIDDLE
2
57
51
89.5%
9
LI (?)
4«%
2
- 6 1
-17
-8
-3
I
3 4 j
KPA
Updated: 2/18/10
GOSA_APS_MCKEE 000005
RED Is equal to a decline in performance on CRCT.
Given \i equal to improved performance (4K or higher) on CRCT.
Yellow Is equal to slight Im proved performwrce on cnCT.
Orange is equal to constant performance [CM] on CRCT,
tt of sections
with a mean of
tl of Classes % a '." Clashes 10 or more
SchoolName ff of Classes Fla£ged_WTR naEged_WTR erasures
UNIVERSITY CO 60 15 25.0%
CO
Charter School CRCT Comparison for 2008 to 2009.
AVP Target I1D1 LAI MAI RP2 LA2 [VIA? RB3_ LA3 MA3 RD4 LAI
0(4) HI 2 j f3 }; S ] .cjjfci >j£ 'jl 1 I ■ j
GOSA APS MCKEE 000001
I
g
o
o
1X1
CO
o
CD
3 3
. s
1
697
May 24, 201 1
Note to File
RE: In the Matter of Parks Middle School - May 5, 2006
After reviewing the 8th grade writing test allegation to determine if this
portion of the investigation was properly disposed, I found the following.
I spoke with Ray Hart, Executive Director of Research, Planning and
Accountability, as he is considered APS' in-house subject matter expert
regarding assessments. Dr. Hart provided a copy of the 2005-2006
Systemwide Testing Calendar and noted the 2006 8th grade writing exam
was administered January! 8- 19, 2006. Dr. Hart stated that testing
materials are typically sent 1 week prior to the administration of a
standardized test and it is highly unlikely that test materiais for this test
would have been sent to schools prior to the Christmas break.
Additionally, Dr. Hart will search his office for documents which may
outline the exact dates APS received testing materials during this school
year.
Given that it is highly unlikely that testing materiais were distributed to APS
schools prior to the Christmas break for this exam, Mr. Dorian Rodgers, the
teacher in question, would not have been able to provide students with
the actual writing test prompt.
Dr. Hart mentioned that it is important to note that "coaching" students
could include teachers accessing GOAS and coaching students on
sample writing prompts approved by the Georgia Department of
Education, "Coaching" students on pre approved sample writing test
prompts is not considered a test irregularity.
Nicole Lawson
Special Assistant t/t CHRO
698
Regular Calendar
Atlanta Public Schools
2005-06 Systemwide Testing Calendar
/-^ust 15-16
r Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program Revised iGKAP-RfWmdaw 1 (Forms returned on August 25),
prober 12-16
September 19-23
September 28
September 29
• Retest for Georgia High School Graduation Test in order by day beginning on Monday English/Language Arts
Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science including make-up testing. Retest for eligBjle students who did not pass or
missed the test previously.
• Georgia Basic Skills Test in reading Had math. Administer only to former students who qualify,
• EOCT electronic make-up for students who missed Spring 2O05 test.
■ Georgia High School Graduation Test in Writing for all grade 11 students and eligible students who did not pas or missed
previous testing,
• Georgia Basic Skills Test in Writing (Nc make-up). Administer only to former students who qualify,
• Georgia High School Graduation Test in Writing (Mate-up)..
October 12 [Watntiilir)
October 17-21
October 17-21,24,25
• PSAT (Grades 10 and It)
• EOCT electronic make-up far students who missed Spring 2005 test
• 1TBS in Grades 3, 5, and 8 if decision is made for fall testing of NRT instead of Spring Testing.
November 7-11
November J9 - December 12
• Georgia High School Graduation Te»t in order by day beginning oh Monday; English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Social
Studies, and Science including make-up tesling. Refest for eligible students who did not pass or missed the test
previously. .
• End of Course Tests Week one beginning on Tuesday with one test per day; Tuesday, American Literature and
Composition; Wednesday, 9"1 Grade Literature and Composition; Thursday, Economics; and Friday, u. S. History.
Second week beginning on Monday; Algebra I; Tuesday, Geometry; Wednesday, Biology; and Thursday, Physical
Science, Make-up day on Friday and following Monday,
January 3 - February 25
January 17-21
January 18-19
January 18-20
• Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program Revised (GKAP-R) Window 2
• EOCyelectronic make-up for students who missed December EOCT
• Georgia Middle Grades Writing Assessment (Grade 8 only). Test on Wednesday and make-up on Thursday.
« Georgia Writmg Test for Grade 5- Test on Wednesday and Thursday with make-up on Friday.
February 20-24
• EOCT electronic make-up Ibr students who missed Dee ember EOCT
March 1 -April 30
March 1
March 2
;rt 6-10, 13, 14
March 20-21
March 31
• Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program Bsvised (GKAP-R) Windows
• Georgia High School Graduation Test in Writing. Retest for eligible students who did not pais or did not take the test
previously,
• Georgia Basic Skills Jest in Writing for eligible students (No make-up). Administer only to former students who qualify.
• Georgia High School Graduation Test ia Writing (Make-up).
• NDiul-Referenced Test (ITBS) in Grades 3, 5, and 8. Also Terra Nona for identified students in grades K, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9,
1 0, and 1 1 fur Gifted Screening and ESOL Program exit
» Georgia High School Graduation Test in order by day beginning on Monday; English/language Arts, Mathematics, Social
Studies and Science including make-up testing.
• Georgia Basic Skills Test in reading and math. Administer only to farmer students who qualify.
• Georgia Grade 3 Writing Assessment Schools return rating forms completed by grade 3 teachers.
April 3-7
April 13 and 14
ApriS 13
April 17-21,24. 25,26
April 14-May 5
April/May
• Spring Break
» RFP Tpctft m Rearfinpditd Mftfh fhr oraftw Q 1 fl RFP nartirlnanf^
• Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program Revised (GKAP-R). Schools return prms completed by kindergarten
teachers.
• Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) iii grades 1 through 8 in reading, language arts, and math, and in
grades 3-8, science and social studies.
• Georgia End of Course Tests (EOCT) Week one with one test per day; Monday, American Literature aad Composition;
Tuesday, Biology; Wednesday, U. S. History; Thursday, Economics with Friday mdce-up day. Week two: Monday,
Geometry, Tuesday, Algebra I; Wednesday, Physical Science, and ThurEday, 9* Grade Literature and Composition with
Friday make-up day.
Note; The second week of EOCT will overlap with Erst week of Advanced Placement (AP) Exains,
• English Language Development Assessment (ELDA) for ESOL students (Dates to be announced later.)
May 5
• Completed Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA) Forms Returned
JWtMMHWilii'iWiWItr'ffm1^
Summer 2006 Dates
• CRCT —Metest for Grades S and 5 students who do not m&i standards, (fiat?.* to he determined).
^,12
Jury 17-20
Jury
• Georgia High School Graduation Test in Writing
• Georgia HighSchool Graduation Test in order by day: English/Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, Mathematics.
Retest for eligible students who did no; pass or missed the March 2004 administration.
« End of Course Tests (To be administered during high school summer school.)
MGB: sm/!h-#2943 Revised 6/1/05 Research, Planning and Accountability
699
Page 1 of 2
Ati IKON
To:
From:
Sent:
Penn Payne [ppayne@pennpayne.com]
Friday, June 10, 2011 11:53 AM
Rush S. Smith
Subject: FW: Privileged and Confidential - Attorney-Client Communication
Attachments: draft letter responding to GOSA 7-2-09 PP track changes.doc
Penn Payne
Penn Payne, LLC
Arbitration, Mediation and Investigation
35S6 Tuxedo Park NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
404.841.3295 phone
404.841.3296 fax
ppayne@pennpayne.com
http://www.pennpayne.com
NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and all included attachments) may contain information which is confidential
and legally privileged. This information is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this
message is not an intended recipient you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution,
copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, if you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-841-3295) or by electronic
mail fppayne@pennpayne.com) and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof.
IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any
U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
From: Penn Payne
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:24 PM
To: 'lmckeehome@bellsouth.net'; 'kmadiva@aol.com'
Subject: Privileged and Confidential - Attorney-Client Communication
Dear Dr. Augustine and Mr. McKee,
Attached is my mark-up of the letter we discussed today. [ have also made some comments in the margin. If you
are not familiar with the Track Changes function of Word, please be aware that anyone who had an electronic
version of this letter, even after Track Changes is turned off, could see my edits and comments. So I would
recommend that any changes to the letter be re-typed into the original version of the letter before I added the
changes.
I made changes only to the text that was "assigned" to me - 1 believe Lester will make additional changes.
I have not copied Jeff Schiller on this email because, upon reflection, I am concerned that sending my draft of the
letter along with my comments might waive the attorney-client privilege. Unless he is an attorney with an
attorney-client relationship with APS, he might not be covered as a consultant I'll leave it up to you to decide how
to communicate the content of the letter to him.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Penn
Penn Payne
6/10/2011
Payne_ E_0004167
700
Page 2 of 2
penn Payne, LLC
Arbitration, mediation and Investigation
3586 Tuxedo Park N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30305
(404) 841-3295 (Phone)
(404) 841-3296 (Fax)
ppayne@pBnnpayne.com
www.pennpayne.com
NOTICE: This e-rnail transmission (and all included attachments) may contain information which is confidential
and legally privileged. This information is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this
message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution,
copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-841-3295) or by electronic
mail (ppayne(3>pennpayne,com) and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof.
IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any
U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
6/10/2011
701
Payne_E_0004168
I Deleted: Unlike I tit findings in the
^ Atherton Elementary ScbDol case
; where an admission of guilt fans been
' I offered, d
Deleted: made no
This letter is in response to recommendations offered to the State Board of
Education regarding alleged testing violations at Deerwood Academy daring the
2008 Summer CRCT Retest.
As a consequence of an internal review (may put in some process points here), the
district strongly disagrees with the allegations, the proposed sanctions to be applied
and the merits of the State's case against the Atlanta Public Schools and Deerwood
Academy. It appears that the basis for the State's case rests with the statistical
probability of cheating and not a specific incidence of cheating. jVeither district
personnel nor volunteers have admitted, to any tampering with or alteration of
answer documents. Jourjintcriia 1 review pas determined thatjiicre is jnj»_b^asis_in:f act
tosubstantiatcchcatingi
t J[ Deleted: siich admission
,' ,'' [ Deleted: ai>7~
•i
'4
f'V
1 ill
■ComnranttPPJ,-]:i^
to ?ny -MtyedagHtioa/as -flic I'jiitejija]: "1;^ "-^
■^new^'L^nxik Aat Hub better -way- to -ii^-
make tins statement is uaoi^fbescnleiicq t
The statistical analysis performed on student papers based on erasures cannot
prove, as alleged, that an individual was responsible for changing student answers.
It was not in the interest of the school, the school administrators or the testing
coordinator to lake (he extraordinary risk of amending student answer documents.
Wh en no lanaiMe tin rtu resulted from a onr-vpnr failure to achieve A VP i n 2008 and
noiauaibtc beneOt iwas lost j.'rojn1haloncTV^arifailui"ei[ JFnrthcr. the rep_o rt indicates _
that Deerwood experienced an average gain of 41.2 scale score points on the CRCT
retest compared to the main administration. However, one student had a 31 scale
score point decrease. If the average gain had been calculated correctly, the average
gain would be 39.2 and would translate into 3.3 Standard Deviations (SD) above the
state average (of 16.4 with a SD of 7). If the Governor's Office of Student
Achievement (GOSA) used an average gain that was 3.5 SD above the state average,
then Deerwood would not have met the established criteria and would not have been
considered for further investigation.
The district has retained an external investigator to conduct an investigation into
the allegation in the GOSA audit report that "someone who had access to test
materials after testing concluded changed multiple students' answers on the 5th
grade CRCT at Deerwood Academy." That investigation is currently ongoing and
has not vet been completed. At this stage, however, the investigation has not
uncovered evidence that someone actually altered students' answers.
Comment [PP2]: Make sure fcal J am
'^snrreetii[mraldng;this3tatenienF— butfhiG-
years =of iaihirc Id trigger, any Teal ~ = = ^ i' ":r= i:
consequences;
Deleted; ii was well known that only
4 to 7 students needed to pass the retest
out of the 32 tested students in order
for the school to make Adequate
Yearly Progress in 21)0)1.
Formatted; Superscript
I' ,lke:mbstance:of.uieisBOfc&:G£lai-Bccuitty"
^aiidyqlimtOTsJieca^-Jii^wM^etoo;
jnuchjBiplanalion-mjtadertQ 1>b tmrhiuL
andl plan fo do -fbat-m my report^Yoa--;
could add-at1ae en3 . 'of tins paragraph:*
.v IThe myKtigator'wjii also' address in iier I
^brt^-aadftiorial *Ue£ati6ns"abtjQt^ r=>i
.loose 'S.ecuirt5;TEjatmfi^to tneifii -.:
matermh7" *■ TI r~ '
Finally, as a regional training partner and host site for Teach for America (TFA),
APS prepares aspiring teachers for their school placements by matching each TFA
teacher with a veteran APS Faculty Adviser and providing each teacher pair with
individualized student plans based on content and domain area weaknesses. The
TFA/APS teacher pairs then deliver targeted instruction designed to uniquely and
Deleted; The report adso refers to
loose security due in part to volunteers
supporting the school during the
summer. What Che repftrt fails to
document wat that the referenced
volunteer E a retired teacher who had
continual); provided support as ■
substitute teacher at Deerwood
Academy during the school year.
District personnel suggested that the
volunteer in question was not involved
with the p roc to ring or testing of
summer school students and did not
have direct access to answer
documents. The volunteer supported
the test coordinator prior to the test
ad ministration by bubbling in. student
demographic information on answer
documents. Due to tht absence of state
produced student-level CRCT retest
pre-id labels, the demographic
i a formation on each answer document
hnd to lie completed in its entirety
prior to the testing period, f
f
Also, the report suggests that no one
took responsibility for ensuring the
materials were is a secure location at
all times. The district strongly
disagrees. This statement is in direct
contradiction wife the Frinripfllj^ [j^
702
Payne_ E_0004169
tactically support students to achieve passing scores on the retest during the
summer.
Given all the above, the district must disagree with the alleged findings and believes
that no consequences should be exacted on Deerwood Academy. Deerwood
Academy should retain its AYP status and a formal recommendation and
acknowledgement of this fact should be offered to the district by the State Board
aad Georgia Department of Education.
With respect to recommended district-level actions outlined in the report, Deerwood
Academy has already communicated with all of its K-5 parents/guardians regarding
the GOSA allegations and findings and has agreed to keep parents informed as the
investigation moves forward. The district's Comprehensive School Reform agenda
requires differentiated instruction based on each student's current academic
performance and prior academic history, and as such, the district believes that
adequate support will be offered to the middle school students who have left
Deerwood Academy. The district is also engaged in an intensive Math & Science
reform, funded by the GE Foundation and all math and science teachers are
involved in intense professional development to realize mastery of the GPS
standards and all related tasks in these areas. These efforts should adequately
address the concerns regarding student preparation and success.
We anxiously await your review of the facts and are prepared to discuss these
matters as appropriate. Thank you.
703
Payne_ E_0G04170
Page 1: [1] Deleted ".7" " ..... \ .. /... : • Penn Payne -' • 7/2/2009 8:19:00 PM
The report also refers to loose security due in part to volunteers supporting the
school during the summer. What the report fails to document was that the
referenced volunteer is a retired teacher who had continually provided support as a
substitute teacher at Deerwood Academy during the school year. District personnel
suggested that the volunteer in question was not involved with the proctoring or
testing of summer school students and did not have direct access to answer
documents. The volunteer supported the test coordinator prior to the test
administration by bubbling in student demographic information on answer
documents. Due to the absence of state produced student-level CRCT retest pre-id
labels, the demographic information on each answer document had to be completed
in its entirety prior to the testing period.
Also, the report suggests that no one took responsibility for ensuring the materials
were in a secure location at all times. The district strongly disagrees. This statement
is in direct contradiction with the Principal Certification Form signed by both the
Summer School Site Coordinator and Test Coordinator. This APS form (provided
to us by the state) specifically requires certification that the materials were secure at
all times. No school monitoring reports or testimony exist to support a breach in
district or school-level protocols.
704
Payne_E_0004171
ATLANTA
PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
Making A Difference
Office of the Superintendent
Beverly L, Hall, EcLD.
Superintendent
Phone: 404-802-2820
Fax: 404-802-1803
My 6, 2009
Ms. Kathleen Boyle Mathers
Director of External Relations '
Governor's Office of Student Achievement
1554 Twin Towers East
Atlanta, GA 30334
Dear Ms. Mathers:
This letter is in response to recommendations offered by the Governor's Office of Student
Achievement to the State Board of Education regarding alleged testing violations at Deerwood
Academy during the 2008 Summer CRCT Retest.
The district retained the services of an external investigator to conduct an investigation into tfir—r
allegation in the GOSA audit report that "someone who had access to test materials after testing
concluded changed multiple students' answers on the 5* grade CRCT at Deerwood Academy."
The portion of that investigation focusing on the "cheating charge" is completed and concludes
that there is no evidence, no basis in fact, that someone actually altered students* answers.
Neither district personnel nor volunteers at the school have admitted to tampering with or
altering CRCT answer documents. . ,
Based on the external investigation, and the district's thorough internal investigation, the district
strongly disagrees with the allegations, the proposed sanctions and the merits of the State's case
against the Atlanta Public Schools and Deerwood Academy. It appears that the basis for the
State's case rests with the statistical probability of cheating and not a specific incidence of
cheating. Neither district personnel nor volunteers at the school have admitted to tampering with
or altering CRCT answer documents.
The statistical analysis performed on student papers based on erasures cannot prove, as alleged,
that an individual was responsible for changing student answers. In fact, there was no motive to
change the answer sheets. It was not in the interest of the school, the school administrators or the
testing coordinator to take the extraordinary risk of amending student answer documents, when
no tangible harm would have resulted from a one-year failure to achieve AYP in 2008 and no
tangible benefit would have been lost from that one-year failure. The GOSA report fails to
mention the rigorous academic iprogram and teachers' efforts that we are convinced are at the
heart of the gains, Further, the report indicates that Deerwood experienced an average gain of
41 2 scale score points on the CRCT retest compared to the main administration. However, one
Atfanta PubJfc Schools ■ 130 Trinity AvenuB, S.W, • Atlanta, GA 3Q3Q3 • 4O4-802-35DO
Ww'^.a^antspublicschoQls.us
Payne 00158
705
Ms. Kathleen Boyle Mathers
July 6, 2009
Page 2
student had a 31 scale score point decrease, and the average gain should be 39.2 and would
translate into 3.3 Standard Deviations (SD) above the state average (of 16.4 with a SD of 7). If
the Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) used an average gain that was 3.5 SD
above the state average as grounds for review, then Deerwood does not meet the established
criteria. for further investigation.
Given the above, the district must disagree with the alleged findings and believes that no
consequences should be exacted on Deerwood Academy. Deerwood Academy should retain its
AYP status.
With respect to recommended district-level actions outlined in the report, Deerwood Academy
has already communicated with ail of its K-5 parents/guardians regarding the GOSA allegations
and findings and has agreed to iceep parents informed as the investigation moves forward. The
issue of student support will tie adequately addressed through the district's Comprehensive
School Reform agenda that requires differentiated instruction based on each student's current
academic performance and prior academic history. As such, the district believes that adequate
support will be offered to the middle school students who have left Deerwood Academy. The
district is also engaged in an intensive Math & Science reform, funded by the GE Foundation
and all math and science teachers are involved in intense professional development to realize
mastery of the GPS standards and all related tasks in these areas. These efforts should
adequately address the concerns regarding student preparation and success and should in no way
be interpreted as a sign of agreement regarding the allegations.
We anxiously await your review of the facts and are prepared to discuss these matters as
appropriate. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Beverly L. Hall, Ed.D.
Superintendent
cc: Ms. Kathy Augustine
Payne 00159
706
Here is a copy with the text in the e-mail. Thank you!
Heather Vogeil
Reporter
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Office:(404)526-7113
Ceil; (704)258-7794
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
GEORGIA OPEN RECORDS ACT REQUEST
Tuesday, April, 14
Dr. Beverly Hall
Superintendent
Atlanta Public Schools
Dear Superintendent Hall,
Pursuant to die Georgia Open Records Act. O.C.G.A. SectionAij 50-18-70 et al.. The Atlanta Journal- Constitution is requesting to review die
following public documents with tlie exception of those porti oik specifically exempted by state law :
*A11 complaints, supporting documentation, findings and any and all related dominants made to the Office of Internal Resolution since March
2006.
To assist you. I have included tlx; pertinent language from the Georgia Open Records Act regarding complaints and investigations:
The law exempts only: '"{^Records dial consist of confidential evaluations submitted to, or examinations prepared by. a governmental agency
ard prepared in connection with the appointmeis or hiring of a public officer or employee: and records consisting of material obtained in
investigations related to die suspension firing, or investigation of complaints against public officers or employees until ten days after the
same has been presented to the agency or an officer for action or the investigation is otherwise concluded or terminated, provided that
this paragraph shall not he interpreted to make such investigatory records privileged; " (my emphasis)
If you believe any of die requested material is exempt please provide die citation from the law that permits such exemption.
As you know, the Georgia OpeuRecords Act allows reasonable search and retrieval fees after die first quarter hour or a maximum standard
charge of 25 cents per page, or in Hie case of records maintained ona computer, the actual cost of die disk or rape onto which the information is
transferred. Therefore, if fees are assessed and are expected to exceed $25. piease alert the newspaper in advance, as the law requires, and
explain the basis for the fees, so the new spaper can co nsider mo difying its reqne st.
Thank you far your assistance. I can be contacted at (404)526-71 13 or via email at hvogell@ajc.com. Please do not hesitate to contact me with
questions.
Sincerely,
Heather Voged
Reporter
707
APS-BHALL-Q03740
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
Pitts, Sharron
Hall, Beverly L. (Supt.)
4/14/2009 9:26:41 PM
FW: AJC ORA request
interesting.
From: Few, Mi 1 1 [cent
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:23 PM
To: Mazyck, Veieter; Howard, Colinda; Pitts, Sharron
Subject: FW: AJC ORA request
From: Tucker, Seana
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:45 PM
To: Few, Millicent
Cc: Manguno, Joseph
Subject: FW: AJC ORA request
Hi Millicent,
Joe Manguno will follow-up with Ms. Vogell to find out what she needs specifically. I will advise you of the findings.
Paralegal
Office of the Chief of Staff
Atlanta Public Schools
130 Trinity Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-802-2811 (Direct Line)
404-802-1807 (Facsimile)
stu cker @ atlanta . k 1 2 . ga . u s
www.atlanta.kl2.ga.us
From: HVogell@ajc.com [mailto:HVogeli@ajc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:48 PM
To: Tucker, Seana
Subject: AJC ORA request
FY I
Thank you .
With Regards,
708
APS-BHALL-003739
FROM : Atlanta Public Schools
FAX NO. : 4048021802
May. 06 2009 06:00PM PI
*AII complaints, supporting documentation, findings and any and all related
documents made to the Office of Internal Resolution since March 2006
concerning allegations of Employee Wrongdoing involving all types of parties in
the following categories: Misrepresentation/Falsification(Testtng, Grading,
Applications, other Instruction), Public Funds/Property and Improper
Remunerative Conduct,
The results are as follows:
2006/2007 Caseloa
• Sn The Matter of Gwendolyn Bramwell (T) Tull Waters ES 5/18/07 Testing
Violation
• Charge of Misappropriation of Funds at Douglass High School (Referral to
Office of Internal Compliance)
• In The Matter of Corliss Randall-Davenport, Principal, & Denise Bell,
Secretary Dunbar ES 10/19/06 Misappropriation of Funds
• In The Matter of Suprenia Miller (Teacher) East Lake ES 5/7/07
• In The Matter of NybrSa T. (Student) Cascade ES Testing Violation
• In The Matter of Barbara White (Teacher) AD Wms ES 4/17/07 Testing
Violation
• In The Matter of Thornasville Heights ES 4/19/07 Testing Violation
• Reglna Cuffey-Harris (Counselor) Therrell HS 8/12/06 (NC) Falsification of
Athlete's Eligibility
• In The Matter of Fabrice Aime (Teacher/Coach) Kennedy MS 11/1/06
Falsification of Athlete's Eligibility
• In The Matter of Lesma Richards (Teacher) Cook ES 4/18/07 Testing
Violation
• In The Matter of Gloria Johnson (Teacher) Grove Pk ES 11/14/06
Misappropriation of Funds
• In The Matter of Beverly McCray (Ed Spec.) Career Ed Misappropriation of
Funds
• In The Matter of Continental Colony ES (Testing Violation)
• In The Matter of Chih Chou .Teacher, Sarah Smith 4/19/07 (NC) Testing
Violation
• In The Matter of Delfreda Hancock Teacher, (Continental Colony) Testing
Violation
2007/2008
• In The Matter of Brenda Blake.Teacher, Townes ES 3/14/08 Testing
Violation
• Betty Foster (Program Asst.) Grady HS 1 1 /6/07 (NC) Testing Violation
• External Investigator; Thornasville Heights ES: Testing Violation 4/22/08
• In the Matter of Cheryl Jenkins, Douglass HS 1/30/08 Testing Violation
■ In the Matter of Jena Rainey, Crim HS 1/3O/08 Testing Violation
709
FROM : Atlanta Public Schools
FAX NO. : 404S021802
May. 06 2009 06:00PM P2
• In the Matter of Gwendolyn Carter, Counselor, West End Academy
1/30/08 Testing Violation
* In the Matter of Theresa Powell, Teacher, Bolton Academy ES 4/30/08
(EW) Testing Violation
• Warrkesha Conyers, Teacher, White ES 4/24/08 Testing Violation. Testing
Violation
* In the Matter of Dwight Hardy, Teacher, Toomer ES. 5/7/08 Testing
Violation
710
FRDM : Atlanta Pub He Schools
FAX NO. : 4040021802
May. 86 2009 06:00PM P3
2008/2009
• Anonymous Complaint- Hutchinson ES (EW) 6/25/08. Testing Violation
• In the Matter of Pecola Green .Teacher, Blalock ES 6/24/08 Testing
Violations.
• In the Matter of Marcus Barber, Principal, South Atlanta High School of
Leadership and Economic Empowerment) 5/20/08 Misappropriation of
Funds
• In the Matter of Mays High School - Various complaints
• In the Matter of Stefanie Woods, Bus Driver, 7/30/08 Application
Falsification
• In the Matter of Falana Favors, Teacher, Scott ES 9/5/08 Misappropriation
of Funds
• in the Matter of Dr. Lucious Brown, Principal, Kennedy MS 1/28/09
Employee Income Verification Falsification
• in the Matter of Carol Dennis, Administrative Assistant, Kennedy MS
1/28/09 Employee Income Verification Falsification
• External Investigation: Dr. Angelisa Cummings , Principal, Crim Open
Campus 1/26/09 Misappropriation of Funds
• in the Matter of Cheryl Jenkins, Teacher, Douglass HS 9/22/08
Misrepresentation of Certification
• In the Matter of Uliana Gancea, Teacher, Carver HS Tech 10/16/08
Employment Verification Falsification
• External Investigation: In the Matter of Karen Riggins-Taylor, Principal,
Turner MS 3/18/09 Testing Violation
• External Investigation: In the Matter of Dr. Andre Williams, Principal,
Coan MS 3/18/09 Testing Violation
• In the Matter of Bolton Academy. 10/7/08 Misappropriation of School
Property
• In the Matter of Darryl Evans (T) King MS 1 1/4/08 Time Falsification
• In the Matter of Judy Butts-Smith, Counselor, Hill ES 12/10/08 Falsification
of Medical Documentation
• In the Matter of Tiffani Stevenson, Media Specialist, Coretta Scott King
1/27/09 Time Falsification
711
FROM ".Atlanta PuMic Schools
FAX NO. : 4043021002
May. 06 2009 06:01PM P4
ATLANTA
PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
Making A Difference
Atlanta Public Schools
O of Co tnnrun i.ctitio n $
1 30 Trinity Avetiue, iS, W.
Atlanta, GA 3030-0
Phone: '104-802-8500
FAX
Pages [not including covarj: $ , Date: 6> ^jcbu ^po^
To: AU&$zM i/aq<?Jf ' i _/l^Sr , Fran: Jo<z, fngMflW>\Q /)PS
Phone: f}f) f ^ „ Fax; T~ I I
Re; _ CG
Urgent _ Far Review _ Please Cam merit _, Please Reply „ Please Racycls
COMMENTS
712
Bob Wilson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clyde,. Thomas [tclyde@dowlohnes.com]
Monday, June 13, 2011 2:36 PM
Clyde, Thomas
FW: An additional OIR complaint I did not receive
From: Heather VogeN
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:49 PM
To: kfaromeryPatlanta.ki2.ga.us
Subject: An additional OIR complaint I did not receive
Hi Keith -
I have just learned that there was a testing complaint at Brown Middle in 2008 that I also did not receive in my Open
Records Request. I just left you a voice mail about it. Here are the names on the complaint: Teacher Imogene Redwine
and principal Donnel Underdue. I'm told it's about cheating.
I'll need to find out what this complaint is about ASAP. I'm also growing more concerned that I have not received all the
testing misconduct complaints requested that should have been provided under state law. Have you had a chance to
discuss this with the OIR?
I know you're just jumping in here, and it is SAT day, but please convey my concerns to those who have been involved
with this for weeks now. Thanks, Heather
Heather Vogell
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Office:(404)526-7113
Cell:(404)270-0303
1
713
Bob Wilson
From: Clyde, Thomas [tdyde@dowlohnes.com]
Sent: Monday, June 1 3, 201 1 2:37 PM
To: Clyde, Thomas
Subject: FW: Missing cases?
From: Heather Vogell
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:23 PM
To: kbronnerv(a)atlanta.kl2.qa.us
Subject: Missing cases?
Hi Keith,
Our request covered the 06-07, 07-08, and 08-09 school years. We asked for all OIR complaints involving testing
misconduct.
Here's what we have. The question is, what others are we missing?
School Individual Date
Thomasvilie Heights Elementary Principal Janice Keisey 4/1/2008
Thomasville Heights Elementary Testing coordinator Tracey Fisher
Towns Elementary Teacher Brenda J. Blake 3/11/2008
Coan Middle
4/17/2007
Toomer Middle
Cook Elem
Hutchinson Elem
Continental Colony
Turner Middle Principal
Walter Francis White Elem
AD Williams Elem
Blalock Elem
Cascade Elem
West End Academy
Sarah Smith
Grady
Summer Enrichment Acad
Summer Enrichment Acad
Tul! Waters Elem
Continental Colony
Bolton Academy
General 4/24/2009
Dwight Hardy 5/12/2008
Lesma Richards + others 4/18/2007
List of teachers aug 2007 and may 2008
D elf reda Hancock 4/19/2007
Karen Riggins-Taylor 07-08 and 08-09
Warrkesha Conyers 4/23/2008
Barbara White 4/17/2007
Pecola Green 6/19/2008
General 9/1 5/2006
Gwendolyn Jones Carter
ChihChou 4/18/2007
Betty Foster Nov. 2007
Jena Melissa Rainey
Cheryl Lynn Jenkins
Gwendolyn Bramwell
Michelle Tolliver
2005 summer/2008 decision
2005 summer/2008 decision
5/23/2007
4/28/2009
Theresa Powell
4/30/2008
Thanks, Heather
Heather Vogell
Reporter
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Office:(404)526-7113
Cell:(404)270-0303
l
714
Bob Wilson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clyde, Thomas [tclyde@dowlohnes.com]
Monday, June 1 3, 201 1 2:37 PM
Clyde, Thomas
FW: 01R complaint follow-up
From: Tucker, Seana rmailto:stucker(aatlanta.kl2.qa.usl
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:40 PM
To: Heather Vbgeli
Cc: Yeager, Su
Subject: RE: OIR complaint follow-up
Ms. Vogell:
The information requested is available for review.
Please contact me to schedule a day time that is convenient for you.
With Regards,
Paralegal
Office of the Chief of Staff
Atlanta Public Schools
130 Trinity Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-802-2811 (Direct Line)
404-802-1807 (Facsimile)
stucker(S>,aflanta,k 1 2 . ga.us
www.atlanta.k 1 2. ga.ns
From: HVoQell@alC.gbm rmailto:HVoqell@aic;com1
Sent: Thur|jdjy^u]y.23, 2009 4:03 PM
To: Tucker, llteana^yeaqer, $u -~ ' '
Subject: Fw: OIR complaint follow-up
Hello Ms, Tucker,
1 spoke with Ms. Yeager and Ms. Howard about these additional complaints on Tuesday, I believe, of last week. Ms.
715
Howard indicated the information wouid be located. I was wondering whether it had been. Could you let me know the
status?
Thank you, Heather .
Heather Vogell
Reporter
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
.Office:(404)526-7113
— Forwarded by Heather Vogeli/MET/NEWS/AJC/US an 07/23/2009 03:59 PWl —
HeatherVogell/MET/NEWS/AJC/US To stucker@aiianta.k12.aa.us
cc
07/13/2009 0Z:4S PM
Subject OIR complaint follow-up
Good Afternoon Ms. Tucker,
I have finished reviewing the copies of the OIR complaints provided to me and compared them to the log of complaints.
There are a few loose ends to tie up. I'll list below.
1) There are two complaints that I requested but did not receive materials for. They are:
Gwendolyn Bramwell, Tull Waters, testing violation 5/18/07
Suprenia Miller, East Lake, 5/7/07
HI definitely need a copy of the Bramwell complaint, since it pertains to testing. I'm not sure about the Miller complaint. I
don't remember leaving any whole complaints out after reviewing them with you, but I'd like to check whether it pertains to
testing. Does it? If it does, I'll need that as well. Otherwise, I won't. I understand additional copying charges will accrue
since these were not part of what was copied before.
2) I'd left one testing complaint out of the revised request: It's Theresa Powell, teacher, Bolton Academy ES 4/30/08
testing violation. I'd like to request that additional complaint under the Georgia Open Records Act as well.
3) And finally, can someone tell me whether the first Continental Colony testing violation listed in the log is the same as
the second complaint listed for that school, concerning Delfreda Hancock - which I have? Also, do any of the Mays High
"various complaints" pertain to testing? If so, I'd like to request them/it also under ORA (but not, if not).
I want to make sure i have all the documents responsive to the original request for OIR complaints about testing
violations. However, I don't want to make extra work for you all if some of these complaints that aren't well-described in
the log have nothing to do with testing.
Please let me know when I can pick up copies of the Bramwell and Powell complaints, and let me know whether the
others are relevant to the original request. Thanks, Heather
Heather Vogell
Reporter
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Office:(404)526-7113
Cell:(704)258-7794
2
716
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The (GA)
October. 18, 2009
Section: News
Edition: Main; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Page: A1
Drastic test swings valid?
An AJC analysis finds questionable changes in test scores at 19 schools.
Heather Vogell, John Perry
Staff
Statistically unlikely state test scores are showing up in more classrooms, suggesting the cheating investigation that has
engulfed four schools might be about to widen.
An Atlanta Journal-Constitution investigation found 19 public elementary schools statewide with extraordinary gains or
drops in scores between spring last year and this year. A dozen were in Atlanta.
!n West Manor and Peyton Forest elementary schools, for instance, students went from among the bottom performers
statewide to among the best over the course of one year. The odds of making such a leap were less than 1 in a billion.
This summer, state officials found strong evidence of cheating at four schools statewide in an investigation that followed
a December AJC story about improbable gains on state tests.
In the most recent analysis, the AJC again used, statistics to look for schools with test score changes far outside the
normal range. The newspaper compared students' scores in one grade versus their scores in the next. Some improved
astronomically, but others deteriorated sharply.
"Changes of that magnitude are just extremely suspicious," said Walt Haney, a testing expert and professor at Boston
College.
Atlanta officials said they do not believe cheating occurred. Yet questionable scores appeared last school year in more
than one in five of the district's 57 elementary schools, the AJC analysis showed. At some, multiple tests stood out, with
scores moving up or down erratically. Experts say children's scores are normally fairly stable between grades.
'There had to be something considerable that happened that you would swing that much in a single year," said Kathleen
Mathers, executive director of the Governor's Office of Student Achievement.
Her office is scrutinizing state test scores for the sort of anomalies that could signal test-tampering. It will use its findings
- due this month — to decide where to audit, she said.
This is the first time state officials have undertaken such a broad search for test cheats.
Several Atlanta principals attributed unexpected score changes to factors such as a good instructional programs,
talented or struggling teachers or changes in the student population.
Atlanta Deputy Superintendent Kathy Augustine said the district has no plans to check the validity of the scores
highlighted by the AJC.
"I don't have any reason- to look at that," she said. "We expect outliers every year."
She said the district's use of testing data to guide instruction and good teacher training are among the strategies that
have helped schools make steady progress. Also, high rates of student turnover at some schools in question could
create surprising score jumps, she said.
A check of several schools outside Atlanta with similarly high turnover, however, found none with such unusual test
results.
717
Last summer, critics chastised Atlanta for its handling of cheating allegations at Deerwood Academy, one of the schools
where state officials said they had uncovered evidence of likely test-tampering. Superintendent Beverly Hall said the
district found no proof - a stance that drew a rebuke from Gov. Sonny Perdue.
Augustine said the district would investigate if it had evidence of cheating.
Besides the Atlanta schools, Heards Ferry in Fuiton County was the only other in the metro area to report such
unexpected scores, the AJC found.
A meteoric jump
The AJC examined scores on state reading, math and language arts tests for students in grades 3 through 5. The
newspaper compared students' scores from 2008 with how they did in spring 2009.
The state Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests are Georgia's main measure of academic ability through eighth grade.
The Atlanta elementary schools in question include one that state Superintendent Kathy Cox praised effusively in May as.
a hardworking school with an "absolutely no-excuses attitude."
"By the way, they're knocking the socks off of the test scores," Cox said of Peyton Forest Elementary at a state Board of
Education meeting. "They're just a shining star."
Indeed, when state test results arrived a few weeks later, some scores' rise was meteoric.
Peyton third-graders' math results last year were among the lowest in the state. But as fourth-graders this spring, they
placed fourth in math out of nearly 1 ,200 schools statewide, outpacing dozens of affluent suburban classrooms.
The feat was even more surprising given that two months before the state test, 94 percent of Peyton fourth-graders
scored at the lowest of four levels on the district's own practice math tests.
Peyton Principal Karen Barlow-Brown said the increases were partly due to a former third-grade math teacher who was
ineffective last year and a talented fourth-grade teacher this year. She also said the school doesn't use the practice tests
as a predictor of state test results.
"That is really an insult," she said when asked whether tests might have been altered.
Such dramatic gains in such a short amount of time, however, are abnormal at best, experts said.
"It's very hard to explain these huge gains," said Tom Haladyna, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University and
testing expert who reviewed the AJC's findings. "You have to wonder: Is this the greatest school in the world?"
Schools that attribute such rare gains to a successful program have a responsibility to show others what they did, he
said. 'The whole world wants to know this," he said. "If we could get this out of every class in your state and every other
state, wouldn't that be fantastic?"
An Atlanta district spokesman asked a reporter to call Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of Great City
Schools. The group, of which Atlanta is a member, supports urban systems.
Casserly had not seen the AJC's analysis but said he disagreed with experts who said the scores were questionable.
Casserly said some schools might teach their curricula differently from others in the state, or the changes might be
random, or another factor such as teacher turnover could differ in Atlanta.
"If you're after one single explanation, you are on the verge of badly misleading the public on the basis of a very bogus
analysis," he said.
Leapfrogging peers
If falsified, scores can disguise serious academic problems, said Eric Cochling, vice president of public policy at the
nonprofit Georgia Family Council.
718
Parents need valid test scores to make key decisions for their children, such as whether to change schools or teachers,,
or get remedial help, Cochling said.
"How do they know what their child needs, ultimately, if they can't rely on the test results?" he asked. "It seems it sets
these kids up for failure."
Atlanta's West Manor Elementary made some of the most astonishing gains this year.
In fourth grade last year, students' poor scores ranked 830th statewide on the math test. This year, fifth-graders not only
caught up to their peers but sped past them; they scored the highest statewide.
Their average score grew by nearly 90 points year to year, data show. Statewide, the average rise was about 1 5 points.
Practice tests again suggest a disconnect with the CRCT. Sixty percent of West Manor fifth-graders were still scoring at
the lowest level in February practice tests. Not only did every student pass the CRCT in April, but 89 percent scored at
the top "exceeds" level.
Principal Cheryl Twyman attributed gains to "the hard work of the teachers and students - that's a given." She declined
to discuss the results further.
Parent Sharon Shannon Bussie said she has seen West Manor teachers push students to achieve and doesn't believe
they would cheat.
"This school is quite different," she said. "If you're an underachiever, you might as well not go here."
Another puzzling result came from Atlanta's Toomer Elementary.
Last year, Toomer's fourth-graders scored best in the state on the Englishrtanguage arts CRCT, which focuses on
writing. Toomer's average score was so high that no other school came within 14 points.
But this year, Toomer fifth-graders struggled with the test of concepts such as grammar and sentence structure. Their
average score plummeted 58 points.
Haladyna said researchers rarely see such a steep drop. "Kids don't go backward in their learning," he said.
Interim Principal Hezekiah Wardlow said school staff realized some of its scores had dipped, but not to the extent made
clear in the AJC analysis. He said the school has small grades, and three or four children leaving can have a big impact
on scores.
To be sure, test scores can be affected by shifts in a school district's boundaries or other events that change the makeup
of the student population. A Fulton district spokeswoman noted that Heards Ferry's attendance boundaries changed last
year.
Some Atlanta schools have seen deep declines in student enrollment after housing projects closed in recent years.
Blalock Elementary, which served children living in the Bankhead Courts housing project, had four subject tests with
astronomical gains this year, the AJC's analysis found.
On one, more than 96 percent of fifth-graders scored at the "exceeds" level in math, compared with 36 percent
statewide. Former Principal Frances Thompson said last year was an unusual one for her school. Steep drops in
enrollment as Bankhead Courts emptied meant more attention for students who stayed, she said, adding she has no
concern that cheating might have occurred.
"Our class sizes were so much smaller, and we did use that to our advantage," she said. "We were able to address the
needs of the students very, very closely."
Blalock closed at the end of the school year.
Peyton Forest is not the only school in question that has won awards, money or visits from dignitaries because of test
scores.
719
Top federal education officials have visited Atlanta's Capitol View and F.L. Stanton - which both had tests that were
extreme outliers in the AJC analysis.
Capitol View Principal Arlene Snowden said she did not believe the gains the AJC cited were unusual. She said factors
such as strong teaching programs and stellar staff made the difference.
"We accept no excuses from our children. I have a very highly competent staff. ... We look for teachers who know how to
teach the Capitol View way," she said. "We want everyone to be successful."
Georgia School Superintendent Cox would not comment on the questionable scores because of the state's investigation,
a spokesman said, adding the state would act if cheating were found.
The student achievement office, which is independent of Cox's agency, is scrutinizing both spring CRCT scores and the
results from summer retests taken by students who failed on their first try, Mathers said.
She said the state may use two approaches in addition to statistical analyses. One examines erasure marks for unusual
numbers of answers changed to correct. The other looks for unexpected patterns of responses, such as a class where
students get all the hard questions right but the easy ones wrong.
This summer, state investigators said an erasure analysis revealed strong evidence that adults at four schools had
cheated on CRCT retests.
DeKalb County police charged two school administrators with falsifying state documents. The state board of education
revoked the four schools' status as having met federal standards, or made "adequate yearly progress."
Rumors persist
Unlike most districts, Atlanta hands out bonuses of up to $2,000 per educator to schools that meet targets for improving
test scores. Last week, the district announced more than two dozen schools earned bonuses this year, including eight
that the AJC found had highly unexpected score changes.
Rumors of cheating have swirled for years in the district. Some teachers have said they are afraid to report problems
because they fear retaliation.
This summer, Superintendent Hall said she did not believe cheating was "pervasive" in the district and attributed
anonymous complaints about it to disgruntled employees who resented being held accountable.
Former Atlanta teacher Joan Shensky said she reported finding a student with an illicit answer key that a teacher had
distributed to other fifth-grade teachers at Collier-Usher Elementary in 2005.
"I was horrified, horrified," she said in an interview.
District records show a teacher was sanctioned. Shensky said she wasn't punished for speaking up but felt like an
outcast afterward. She left for a teaching job in another system in 2007.
"I felt ostracized after that," she said. "I was not comfortable."
Steep gains
These charts show the change in two Atlanta schools' average CRCT scores and the average change for all schools
statewide. Compare schools' soaring CRCT scores with the results of the district's practice tests, which students took
about two months before and did much worse on. On practice tests', "unsatisfactory" is the lowest of four levels and
means less than 55 percent of answers were correct.
Standard deviation shows how unexpected a score change is. The odds of a four standard deviation change are worse
than 1 in 31 ,000. The odds of a five standard deviation change are worse than 1 in 3 million. The odds of a six standard
deviation change are worse than 1 in 1 billion.
West Manor Elementary School fifth-grade math
720
CRCT gain: 6.2 standard deviations
Odds: Less than 1 in a billion
Practice test results
January 2008 fourth-grade math: 57 percent unsatisfactory
February 2009 fifth-grade math: 60 percent unsatisfactory
Peyton Forest Elementary School fourth-grade math
CRCT gain: 6.1 standard deviations
Odds: Less than 1 in a billion
Practice test results
January 2008 third-grade math: 68 percent unsatisfactory
February 2009 fourth-grade math: 94 percent unsatisfactory
Source: AJC analysis of Georgia Department of Education and Atlanta Public Schools data
Unexpected scores
Scores dimbed or dipped dramatically at 12 schools in Atlanta and one in Fulton County. The AJC compared each class'
score in 2008 with its score in 2009, in the next grade. Standard deviation is explained above.
Elementary school Grade Test Standard deviation
Atlanta Public Schools
Benteen 3 Read 5.5
5 English 4.3
Bethune 5 Read -4.6
Blalock 3 English 5.8
4 English 4.1
5 Math 5.9
5 English 6.9
Capitol View 3 Read 5.8
Dunbar 5 Read 4.5
F. L Stanton 3 Read 4.3
Perkerson 5 Read 5.6
Peyton Forest 4 Math 6.1
4 English 4.8
721
5 Read 4.1
Toomer4 Read -6.3
5 Read -5.4
5 English -9.3
Usher 5 Read 4.6
Venetian Hills 3 Read 4.7
3 English 4.8
West Manor 5 Math 6.2
Fulton County
Heards Ferry 3 English 4
Note: For a full list of the 1 9 outlier schools, see www.ajc.com/news/1 64807.html Sources: AJC analysis on Georgia
Department of Education CRCT data.
How we got the story
To detect unusual CRCT test score changes, the AJC used a statistical technique called linear regression to compare
average 2009 scores at each elementary to comparable scores from the previous grade the year before.
This analysis found that the 2008 scores consistently explained about 80 percent of the differences between 2009
scores. The analysis also resulted in a mathematical formula that describes the general relationship between 2008 and
2009 scores. For example, an average 2008 fifth-grade reading score of 800 would predict a 2009 score of 802 points. A
2008 score of 850 would predict a 2009 score of 840.
The differences between actual and predicted scores were converted into a measure that can be plotted on a normal
probability curve, or "bell curve," to find the probability of that difference occurring by" chance. A score greater than four
"standard deviations," for example, has an approximate probability of 0.0032 percent, or odds of less than 1 in 31 ,000. A
score greater than six standard deviations has a probability of 0.000000099 percent, or odds of less than 1 in 1 billion.
There are limits to this analysis. Data publicly available from the state do not permit tracking students' individual scores
from year to year. And because we were able to look at average scores only, student mobility could create score
variations not accounted for by the formula derived from the regression. This is especially true for schools and grades
with smaller enrollments.
To counter these limits, we didn't analyze cases with fewer than 20 students. We also only singled out schools with a four
standard deviation or larger difference between predicted and actual scores.
Typically, cases greater than two standard deviations from the average are considered outliers.
Copyright 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
722
Atlanta Public Schools I News
Page 1 of 1
I English to Spanish
Today's Date
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
HOME COMMUNITY DEPARTMENTS INSIDE APS MEDIA GALLERY PARENTS & STUDENTS SCHOOLS CALENDARS
[*Jrhe Atlanta Educator
JTJ|AP5 Reading Room
[*JAPS Mews Releases
(TjHot Topics
JTJhlat Topics Archives
JTjNews Update Online
(TjAPS Cool Kids
11/13/2009
A JL
Making A WfiWoiu-i-
Director nEMrtliii ftislil LtiifB.
Emm I; kt> ronitrf ^rtl.illtupiibliciichiio'ffeis
National Education Experts Selected for APS Test Review
ATLANTA - APS Superinten dent Dr. Beverly L. Hall today announced that two top educational experts have
agreed to examine "outlier" test scores identified in recent analyses of state standardized test scores.
The national experts are Dr. Andrew Porter, Dean of Education at the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School
of Education, and Dr. Douglas Reeves, founder of The Leadership and Learning Center in Englewood, Colorado.
Porter will look at CRCT data in the "outlier" schools and provide a report that gives his perspectiva on what the data
means. Dr. Reeves has developed a body of knowledge that identifies factors that promote or inhibit student
learning. He will visit classrooms, talk with teachers and administrators and review data. He wilt determine what
factors impact student achievement.
Dr. Hall said, "I am very pleased that two of the nation's top testing and education experts have agreed to review
CRCT test scores in 12 of ourschools. Because data alone does not tell the full story, we will have reports from both
the statistical and classroom perspectives. We want to know If the large gains or declines in student testing area
result of factors not considered in recent news reports,"
Dr. Porter is an applied statistician and psychometrician, whose research has focused on assessments and
accountability, content alignment, and the effects of curriculum policies.
He is a former president of the American Educational Research Association and was elected a member of the
National Academy of Education in 1994, where he has served as vice president since 2005. His organization has
worked with school systems in all 50 states and every Canadian province, as well as in Europe. Africa, Asia, South
America and the Middle East.
Dr. Reeves is the author of more than 20 books and numerous articles on leadership and student achievement. He
has twice been named to the Harvard University Distinguished Authors Series. He was named the Brock
International Laureate for his contributions to education, He also received the Distinguished Service Award from the
National Association of Secondary School Principals and the Parents Choice Award for his writing on children and
parents.
Their reports will be made public. The Atlanta Education Fund will pay for the review.
Copyright © 20(18 Atlanta Public Schools
Anti-Discrimination Policy | Terms of Use | TRUSTEe Approved Privacy Policy Questions or medBacK.
130 Trinity Ave. Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (104) S02-35QO
http://www.atlantapublicschools.us/1861 101 1 181 13928800/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=292092... 6/1/201 1
723
February 7, 2010
To: Dr. Beverly Hall, Superintendent
Atlanta Public Schools
From: Douglas Reeves, Ph.D.
The Leadership and Learning Center
Re: School Visitation Report
1. Executive Summary:
In November 2009, 1 was asked by the Superintendent of Atlanta Public Schools, Dr.
Beverly Hall, to undertake a brief inquiry with regard to teaching and leadership practices at
several Atlanta schools that had displayed significant improvements in student test scores from
2008 to 2009. During the period December 7-9, 2009, T visited these schools and since that time
have reviewed other documents and field notes related to those visits. In addition, I reviewed
evidence on the impact of teaching practices on student achievement. The teaching practices in
place at the schools I visited, particularly with respect to high expectation, focused curriculum,
formative assessment, and extra time allocated to literacy, are all consistent with the professional
practices associated with improved student achievement in schools around the world. Indeed,
based on the practices in these schools, it would have been surprising if test scores had not
improved significantly. I neither sought nor received compensation for this work, nor does the
organization for which I work, The Leadership and Learning Center, have any financial or
contractual arrangement with Atlanta Public Schools.
2. Schools Visited:
December fh: Toomer Elementary, Coan Middle School
December 8,h: Venetian, Peyton, West Manor, Bethune, Perkerson, Dunbar, Capitol
View, Benteen
December 9th; F.L, Stanton, Usher, Harper- Archer
Report of Douglas Reeves for Atlanta Public Schools Page 1
February 7, 2010
724
GOSA_APS_AEF„EL_009058
February 7, 2010
To: Dr. Beverly Hall, Superintendent
Atlanta Public Schools
From: Douglas Reeves, Ph.D.
The Leadership and Learning Center
Re: School Visitation Report
1. Executive Summary:
In November 2009, 1 was asked by the Superintendent of Atlanta Public Schools, Dr.
Beverly Hall, to undertake a brief inquiry with regard to teaching and leadership practices at
several Atlanta schools that had displayed significant improvements in student test scores from
2008 to 2009. During the period December 7-9, 2009, 1 visited these schools and since that time
have reviewed other documents and field notes related to those visits. In addition, I reviewed
evidence on the impact of teaching practices on student achievement. The teaching practices in
place at the schools I visited, particularly with respect to high expectation, focused curriculum,
formative assessment, and extra time allocated to literacy, are all consistent with the professional
practices associated with improved student achievement in schools around the world. Indeed,
based on the practices in these schools, it would have been surprising if test scores had not
improved significantly. 1 neither sought nor received compensation for this work, nor does the
organization for which I work, The Leadership and Learning Center, have any financial or
contractual arrangement with Atlanta Public Schools.
2. Schools Visited:
December 7lil: Toomer Elementary, Coan Middle School
December 8th: Venetian, Peyton, West Manor, Bethune, Perkerson, Dunbar, Capitol
View, Benteen
December 9*: F.L. Stanton, Usher, Harper- Archer
Report of Douglas Reeves for Atlanta Public Schools Page 1
February 7, 2010
725
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_009058
3.
Teaching Practices and Improved Test Scores:
3.1 Research Summary: The research literature on the relationship between teaching
practices and improved test scores is rich and varied. Individual studies can vary in quality and
relevance and therefore some researchers engage in a "study of studies" - a meta-analysis - in
order to bring together the findings of many researchers on the same topic. A more ambitious
global approach is a meta-analysis of meta-analyses, and that is the approach recently undertaken
by Professor John Hattie and published in the book Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800
Mela-Analyses Relating to Achievement (Routledge, 2009). The thousands of studies considered
in this volume included an international representation of more than 80 million students. While
individual studies and experts hold varied opinions about the various causes of student
achievement, the preponderance of the evidence can, in my view, be fairly summarized as
follows: While demographic factors, such as poverty, have a significant negative impact on
student achievement, other factors within the control of schools - curriculum, assessment, and
most particularly teaching - have a significant positive impact on achievement. The importance
of Hattie' s work is that it quantifies the impact of these factors, and that is particular importance
in the context of Atlanta Public Schools, a high-poverty urban system.
3.2 Measuring Impacts on Achievement: The measurement used in meta-analysis is "effect
size" - the percentage of a standard deviation in student results. A simplified explanation of the
impact of effect size is that "a one standard deviation increase is typically associated with
advancing children' s achievement by two to three years, improving the rate or learning by 50%,
or a correlation between some variable (e.g., amount of homework) and achievement of
approximately r=,50 ["r" is the correlation, or statistical relationship, between two variables].
When implementing a new program, an effect size of 1 .0 would mean that, on average, students
receiving that treatment would exceed 84% of students not receiving that treatment" (p. 7-8).
Therefore, when schools engage in particularly effective practices, such as formative evaluation,
that have an average effect size of +.90, then the many studies synthesized by Hattie suggest that
student achievement increases very significantly. That is not unusual, nor a reflection of
cheating — it is what happens when classroom practices improved. Indeed, it was precisely this
Report of Douglas Reeves for Atlanta Publi c Schools Page 2
February 7, 2010
GOSAj\PS_AEF_EL_009059
726
practice - formative assessment - along with other demonstrably effective interventions - that I
noticed in the schools that I visited.
3.3 Demographic Impact on Student Achievement: It is well-documented that poverty
adversely influences student achievement. Hattie's study suggests that socioeconomic status
influences 57% of a standard deviation of student achievement. Other factors, ranging from
parental involvement to low birth weight, also have a significant impact on student performance.
In APS, another impact of poverty is unusually high mobility rates for some schools. This is
caused by rent incentives that lead low-income parents to move from one school to another —
indeed, from one district to another - several times within a single school year. The impact on
student achievement is devastating. Even when teachers and administrators are doing many
things right, the effectiveness of their efforts cannot be reflected when students are in those
buildings for only a few weeks before the state test is administered. Despite the pervasive
negative impacts of low income on student achievement, there are a number of published studies
describing schools with high percentages of low-income students that also have high percentages
of students who achieve proficient or advanced scores on state tests. Readers who wish to
explore examples of these can find more than decade of research from The Education Trust
(www.EdTrust.org) and The Leadership and Learning Center (www.LeadandLearn.com). The
existence of successful high-poverty schools does not indicate that socioeconomic status is
unimportant; it only suggests that schools around the nation have been able to make effective use
of specific interventions to improve the performance of students in high-poverty schools. Some
state departments of education routinely identify and study these schools in order to identify the
inventions that are most effective in their local contexts.
3.4 Limitations of Correlation Research: Just because two variables are correlated does not
mean that a change in one variable caused the change in the other variable. Nevertheless, there
are important reasons to examine correlations. First, correlation leads to important causal
discoveries, such as the relationship between tobacco use and cancer. For years, cigarette
companies dismissed the relationship as "only a correlation." Nevertheless, the use of
correlation evidence to reduce smoking saved many lives. Second, there are many simultaneous
influences on student performance, and parsing out any individual cause is nearly impossible.
Report of Douglas Reeves for Atlanta Public Schools Page 3
February 7, 2010
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_009060
727
The best we can do is to examine the relative impact of many variables. Third, the manner in
which scientists in other fields establish causation - double-blind randomized experiments -
could be unethical in an educational context. I doubt that readers of this document would want
their own children randomly assigned to the "no treatment" group, or to a classroom that did not
seek every day to optimize learning. Given these limitations, researchers do the next best thing,
observing relationships between classroom practice and student achievement. That is what I
have done for more than a decade and it is also what Hattie did in a much larger scale. There are
clearly exceptions to the relationships suggested by a correlation. Some smokers never get
cancer and live to a ripe old age; some runners die of heart attacks. Some instructional
interventions do not work for all students and some and some adverse impacts on students - such
as poverty and absent parents - do not have negative impacts on all students. Parents know that
a parenting technique that worked for one child may not work for another. This uncertainty does
not make us helpless, but should make us humble. We cannot claim that "formative assessment
always works" any more than we can claim that "poverty is always deadly" for student
achievement. We can only examine the preponderance of the evidence and draw our best
conclusions.
4.0 Instructional Practices in Atlanta Public Schools:
4. 1 Formative Assessment: A good deal of assessment in schools is designed to provide a
report - perhaps to parents, to school officials, or to the public. This sort of "final" assessment is
sometimes described as "summative." This sort of assessment serves an important evaluative
purpose, but the results from summative assessments are almost never provided to students and
teachers in a manner that is sufficiently timely to improve teaching and learning. It is, to use a
crude analogy, like an autopsy. It provides interesting information, but does not help the patient.
Formative assessment, by contrast, provides feedback to students and teachers throughout the
year and, as the name suggests, is designed to "inform" teaching and learning. This is a critical
point, because it distinguishes schools that give frequent tests and claim to be engaging in
"formative assessment" from those schools that use the information that they gather from student
tests to make improved teaching and leadership decisions. Readers may inquire, "Don't all
Atlanta schools have formative assessments?" There are few schools anywhere that fail to make
Report of Douglas Reeves for Atl anta Publ i c Schools Page 4
February 7, 2010
GOSA_APS„AEF_ELJ09061
728
such a claim. But not every school uses the information in a formative manner, In schools I
visited, for example, there was not only evidence of formative assessment, but also evidence of
student work and other data posted on the walls so that teachers and students could use
information about student performance in a consistent and visible manner to improve teaching
and learning. Moreover, there was evidence of a high degree of specificity of analysis. That is,
teachers not only knew if students were passing or failing, but also knew the exact areas in which
individual students needed assistance. While almost all schools take periodic benchmark tests or
other assessments, not all of them use the data in the thoughtful, constructive, informed, and
specific way that I observed in the schools that I visited. Finally, in the schools that I visited,
teachers and administrators supplemented the APS assessments with their "homemade"
additional assessments in order to provide immediate and specific feedback to students and
teachers. By knowing what students know and do not know, teachers maximized the value of
their instructional time. By frequently analyzing data on student achievement, teachers and
administrators grew faster and more proficient at the entire process, giving themselves more time
to focus on improved teaching and learning.
4.2 Leadership and Coaching: One hallmark of schools that demonstrate academic
improvement i s an intensive focus on improved instruction. The two primary sources of this
improvement is instructional coaching - an expert teacher working directly with classroom
teachers - and effective leadership and supervision. While the daily lives of principals and
coaches can be overwhelmed with details and interruptions, in schools I visited, instructional
coaches were working directly with students and teachers and not, as often happens elsewhere,
diverted into administrative duties. Principals observed entire lessons - perhaps 30 to 60
minutes - and offered immediate feedback for improvements of teachers. This is a much greater
level of administrative support for teachers than is typically the case when there are either
superficial and brief observations, or official year-end evaluative observations.
4.3 Time Allocation: The most effective instructional intervention will never be
implemented if teachers are not given the time necessary to make the interventions work, In
some of the schools that I visited, principals and teachers had doubled the amount of time for
student literacy every day. For students with the greatest needs, they also provided four days of
Report of Douglas Reeves for Atlanta Public Schools Page 5
February 7, 2010
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_009062
729
additional after school work. These two interventions alone provided almost 300 hours every
school year of additional reading instruction. This exceptional level of additional instructional
time is at least one reason that, within a single year, students with significant learning deficits
could achieve proficiency on state assessments by the end of the year. It is particularly
noteworthy that schools that over-emphasized literacy were also able to achieve gains in social
studies. This demonstrates why it is unwise for schools to maintain a traditional schedule for
literacy with the rationale that "we don't have time for reading because we have to cover the
social studies curriculum." In fact, covering any curriculum is an exercise in futility if students
cannot read their lessons. This is consistent with my research (The Learning Leader, ASCD,
2008) in which schools that devoted significantly greater amounts of time for literacy achieved
greater gains in reading, math, science, and social studies than schools that maintained a
traditional schedule.
4,4 Appropriate Test. Preparation: Since the dawn of the standards movement and associated
state tests, there have been frequent expressions of concern about "teaching to the test" and
excessive amounts of time devoted to test preparation. In the schools I visited, I noticed two
important trends with regard to the issue of test preparation. First, teachers and administrators
did seek an explicit link between curriculum and assessment. They insured that students were
instructed about the content required by the State of Georgia and also knew the format of the
tests. Inappropriate test preparation is when students are prepared for specific questions;
appropriate test preparation occurs when students are prepared for any question, having
understood the content and format of the exam, rather than attempting to memorize specific
answers to specific questions. The test preparation techniques I observed - process of
elimination, re-checking work and changing wrong answers, underlining the question, and so on
- are common for all exam preparation programs, from elementary school to graduate school.
They are the sorts of techniques that are routinely given to students in wealthy suburban schools
because it represents an essential lifelong skill. Second, school leaders and teachers appeared to
be aware of the negative impact of test anxiety of students who had, in the past, failed to perform
well on tests. By beginning early in the school year to think about the expectations associated
with the end of year tests, teachers reported that students had an increased level of confidence, a
decreased level of anxiety, and the right level of nervousness - that is, the sort of nervousness
Report of Dougl as Reeves for Atl anta Publ i c Sch ool s Page 6
February 7, 2010
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_009063
730
that would lead them to check their work twice rather than give up on a challenging problem. I
did not observe any behavior or attitudes that suggested inappropriate test preparation or the
willingness to cross ethical lines to achieve improved student performance. That does not mean
that cheating is impossible; it does mean that the practices in these schools are consistent with
those in many high-performing schools around the nation that are able to improve student
performance as a result of the work of teachers and school leaders.
4.5 Effort and Expectations: There is an extensive literature on the impact of teacher
expectations on student work dating lo the early 1960's. Il is known as the "Pygmalion Effect,"
a term taken from the George Bernard Shaw play on which the Broadway musical, "My Fair
Lady" was based. Essentially the evidence suggests that when teachers expect students to do
well, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. More recently, my own research in more than 2,000
schools with more than 1.5 million students confirmed that when teachers and administrators
attribute the causes of student achievement to factors within their control (assessment,
curriculum, time allocation, etc.), gains in achievement are three to five times higher than in
schools where teachers and students attribute the causes of student achievement to factors they
cannot control, such as student demographics {Transforming Professional Learning Into Student
Results, ASCD, 2010). Moreover, Professor Carol Dweck, a Stanford Psychologist, has
assembled impressive evidence to suggest that when students and adults believe that intelligence
and success are the product of effort and hard work rather than innate intelligence, then their
performance improves significantly (Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Ballentine,
2007). This is relevant to the APS schools I visited because there was a consistent - even
relentless - theme of high expectations and hard work for both students and adults. While the
claim of high expectations is universally made in schools, it does not take long for a visitor to
note the quality of student work, the intensity of the feedback, the focus of the teachers and
students, and most of all, the willingness of students and staff to respond positively to mistakes.
5.0 Sustainability and Variability: While the importance of effective teaching and
leadership practices is clear from the evidence cited in this report, that research does not
necessarily translate into sustainability for student results unless an educational system can
provide stability in student population, teaching staffs, and leadership. Just as student mobility
Report of Dougl as P eeves tor Atl anta Publ i c Sch ool s Page 7
February 7, 2010
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_009064
731
creates disruption and inconsistency in test results, so also does variability in teaching and
leadership lead to uncertainty, inconsistent practice, and even cynicism among adults in the
system. While the evidence is clear that teaching and leadership have an exceptional impact on
student learning, it does not follow that public policies are based upon this evidence and lead to
stability in teaching and leadership. On the contrary, schools with the highest needs often have
the greatest levels of turnover among teachers and leaders. Therefore, the results of this report
and, more importantly, of decades of research before it, are of little value without a systemic
commitment to consistent and deep implementation of the best instructional practices. In
research recently conducted at The Leadership and Learning Center and to be published later this
year in Assessing 21s' Century Skills, Solution Tree, 2010), we learned in studies of more than
100 urban schools that the same interventions, from professional learning communities to
instructional coaching to formative assessments, had vastly different levels of impact on student
results depending on the degree of implementation at the classroom and school level. In essence,
it is not the label of the intervention that is most important, but the degree of implementation of
the intervention. That is why monitoring of teaching and leadership are essential to improving
sustainability and reducing variability.
6.0 Recommendations:
6. 1 Systematically Identify Factors Associated With Improvement: APS would benefit from
a public display of data - sometimes called the "Science Fair for Adults," (see Refraining
Teacher Leadership, ASCD, 2008) - in which schools display on a three-panel board their
student achievement data, specific teaching strategies associated with that data, and their own
inferences and conclusions regarding the relationship between teaching strategies and student
results. While the case of an individual school may appear to be only anecdotal evidence, the
participation of the entire district in such an exercise would help system-level leaders identify
trends in effective teaching and leadership practices.
6.2 Articulate Fair and Appropriate Test Preparation Policies: Test preparation remains a
difficult topic for many teachers and administrators, particularly in an environment in which test
preparation can be equated with cheating. APS should develop a clear and specific policy, based
Report of Douglas Reeves for Atlanta Public Schools Page 8
February 7, 2010
GOSA„APS_AEF_EL_009065
732
upon the best practices in schools (including at least some of those that I observed), that not only
permits but encourages teachers to link classroom instruction to ultimate assessment. The policy
should distinguish between inappropriate test prep (memorizing specific responses to specific
questions) and appropriate test prep - understanding subject matter content, assessment format,
and test-taking strategies.
6.3 Clarify the Formative Assessment Implementation for Schools: Formative assessment is
one of the single most effective interventions available in schools. But merely administering
periodic assessments is an expensive diversion of time and resources if it is not used to inform
teaching and learning. APS can identify its own best practices in this are to distinguish effective
formative assessment from simply the administration of periodic tests.
7.0 Conclusion; This inquiry began because of a public suggestion that significant
improvements in test scores in schools from one year to another were unlikely - so unlikely, in
fact, that cheating must have occurred. In one middle school that I visited, vigorous efforts were
under way to reverse an unacceptable state of discipline, achievement, and morale. The
administration was making significant improvements and it is not unreasonable to expect that in
the years ahead, the percentage of students who score at the proficient or higher level will double
or triple. In the same school , a football team that had won only a couple of games in the
previous year recently celebrated an undefeated season - a complete, if highly unlikely,
turnaround. Not as unlikely as the New Orleans Saints winning the Super Bowl in 2010, but
very unlikely nevertheless. The coaches commented that the students this year were not more
talented this year; they just worked harder. School leaders suggested that "good coaching" had a
lotto do with their success. So it is with dramatic improvements in the fortunes of athletic teams.
While there are rare instances of cheating which are punished and ridiculed, the vast majority of
athletic success is attributed to hard work and great coaching. Based on my observations in
Atlanta Public Schools, the specific actions of teachers and administrators in the schools I visited
represent the equivalent of hard work and great coaching. But my opinion matters much less
than Hie inferences drawn by citizens and policymakers. When they consider the improved
academic performance of a school in the spring of 2010, 1 encourage them to ask, "What
conclusion would we be drawing if our football team had a similar success?"
Report of Douglas Reeves for Atlanta Public Schools Page 9
February 7, 2010
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_009066
733
From: Bill McCargo <bill@atlef.org>
To: blhall@at!anta.k12.ga.us <blhall@allanta.k12.ga.us>
CC: Bill McCargo <bfll@atlef.org>
Sent: 2/22/2010 4:50:01 PM
Subject: FW: Atlanta student achievement data paper
Attachments: ATLANTA. DRAFT.2. 1 8 . 1 0. doc
Dr. KaLl,
I am forwarding this draft report on behalf of Bill. This is a confidential preliminary draft
which is not ready for release.
Also, Bill wanted you to know that LaChandra has requested to attend the 11:30am meeting
tomorrow.
We agree that it would be beneficial for her to attend, however we wanted to check with you
before confirming.
Melissa
From: ANDREW PORTER [andyp@gse.upenn.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:00 PM
To: Bill McCargo
•Subject: Atlanta student achievement data paper
Bill,
Attached is the draft of the paper reanalyzing the 2008 and 2009 student achievement data. I
hope you find it useful. Let me know what you think.
Also, pass it on to John Rice and others as you deem appropriate, hopefully including
Superintendent Hall.
I checked with our consultant and my good friend and fellow psychometrician Bob linn, who is
professor emeritus at the University q.f Colorado in Boulder. He says the company that
investigates cheating is called Caveon and it's co-owners are Jim. Irrvparra and John Fremer. Bob
also agrees that Brian Jacob, who I believe is still at the Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, and/or Steven Levitt, who is at the University of Chicago and the American
Bar Foundation would be good possibilities as well. Jacob and 'Levitt have a piece "Rotten
apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating," published in
the August 2003 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Andy
734
GOSA_APS_AEFJELJ)Q91 14
DRAFT
February 18, 2010
Identifying Atlanta Elementary Schools that Had Unusually Large Gains in Student
Achievement Test Scores from the Year 2007/8 to the Year 2008/9
Andrew C. Porter
Jennifer McMaken
University of Pennsylvania
In high stakes student achievement testing, the validity of results is especially important.
Validity can be compromised in any one of a number of ways, one of which is through
cheating. In December of 2009, the Atlantic Journal - Constitution raised the possibility
of cheating in Georgia schools by noting "improbably steep gains at some schools on
tests taken first in spring and then in summer" (June 11, 2009). Apparently, that
prompted the governor' s Office of Student Achievement for the state of Georgia to
conduct erasure analyses that identified four schools in the state where a large number of
student wrong answers had been erased and filled in with the correct answers "causing
passing rates on the state's criterion-referenced competency tests to spike" (June 11,
2009). In an October 18, 2009 issue of the Atlantic Journal - Constitution, reporter
Heather Vogell, working with data analyst John Perry, reported on the results from
regression analyses using spring 2007/8 results to predict spring 2008/9 results for grades
3, 4, and 5 for each of the tests in English Language Arts, Reading, and Mathematics for
the elementary schools in Georgia. Statewide, 19 schools were identified with
"extraordinary gains or drops in scores between spring last year and this year, A dozen
were in Atlanta" (October 19, 2009). Vogell wondered whether cheating might have
occurred in these schools, which did substantially better or worse than was predicted
from the schools' student achievement levels the spring before.
Overview of Analysis Plan
The Atlanta Education Fund contacted the authors of this report to ask if we would do
analyses to determine the "accuracy, the validity of the AJC's findings and identify
alternative explanations for what ;is found." Our analyses were to be focused on just the
2007/8 and 2008/9 years in just the grades 3, 4, and 5, as analyzed by the newspaper.
We asked about analyses that extended beyond grades 3, 4, and 5, the focus of the
newspaper analyses, to include grades 3. through 8 on which there is annual testing. We
were advised to stay focused on grades 3, 4, and 5. We asked the state for teacher-level
data so we could look at not only variance between schools, but also variance among
teachers within schools, but the state could not supply. We also asked for item-level
responses so we could do some erasure analyses, but again the state could not supply.
We asked for grade 2 student level scores but did not receive them, so the 3rd grade
analyses could not be done. At first, we thought that students were not tested in 2nd grade
as they typically are not in other states. That must not be the case, however, as the
newspaper analyses used 2nd grade.
1
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_0091 15
735
On December 3, 2009, we agreed to undertake the requested analyses. We immediately
requested the necessary data from Melissa Fincher of the Georgia Department of
Education. Data were obtained in a file suitable for analysis on January 28, 2009.
Replication of Newspaper Results
Our first analyses sought to replicate the results of the newspaper analyses. The
newspaper regressed 2008/9 school-level achievement means on 2007/8 school level
achievement means for each of the three grades and each of the three tests: English
Language Arts, Reading, and Mathematics, The newspaper calculated residuals for each
school in the state with grades 3, 4, and 5 where a residual is defined as the school's
actual mean level performance in comparison to its predicted mean level performance for
spring 2009 based on achievement in 2008 for the grade prior. Schools with residuals
larger than 4 standard errors of estimate were identified as outliers. Using the State
Department of Education provided analysis file, which contained student level scores for
the two years and three subjects in question, we were able to replicate the newspaper
results.
Two Additional Analyses to Test Validity of Newspaper Results
The newspaper results were based on all students in each of the two years. Thus, the
results did not control for possible changes in student body composition. To control for
possible changes, we completed two analyses. First, we did analyses on longitudinal
data. The longitudinal analyses were only possible for grades four and five because we
were not provided grade 2 test scores. The analyses are based on only the students in a
grade at 2009 that were in the same school in 2008 and had test scores for 200B, for
example, the 5th graders in 2009 were 4lh graders at the same school in 2008. As yet a
third analysis, we regressed 2009 on 2008 data at the school level, just as did the
newspaper, but we added as control variables 12 difference variables contrasting the
composition of the group of students in 2009 to the composition in 2008. These variables
were differences in: enrollment, female, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian,
multiracial, economically disadvantaged, disability, LEP, migrant. We call these
regression analyses "student demographic." Student demographic regression analyses
allowed us to investigate outliers at the 3ld grade level, which the longitudinal analyses
did not, as well as at the 4th and 5th grade levels.
As stated previously, there was some confusion about the availability or not of grade 2
test scores. In one analysis file, we had the data provided by the state that we requested,
which, did not have grade 2. In another analysis file, we had the data given to us by the
newspaper, which is what they analyzed, which in retrospect we saw had grade 2. We
had 'earlier thought that the newspaper analyses had regressed grade 3 in 2009 on grade 3
in 2008. Instead, they had regressed to grade 3 in 2009 on grade 2, 2008. So, in all of
our results, the newspaper results are based on grade 2 as a control. We could not
replicate those grade 3 results with either of our longitudinal nor student demographic
analyses because we didn't have grade 2 in the state provided analysis file. We believe
we could get grade 2 data and do those analyses if that is desired. In what follows in
results, we do report on a student .demographic analysis for grade 3, but it uses grade 3 in
2008 to predict grade 3 in 2009, controlling for shifts in demographics. For grades 4 and
2
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_0091 1 6
736
5, the student demographic analyses use the prior grade in 2008 to predict the subsequent
grade in 2009.
Results of all Three Analyses
Table 1 summarizes the results of the three regression analyses: newspaper, longitudinal,
and student demographic. The rows in the table indicate Atlanta schools with grades 3, 4,
and 5 that "were identified as an outlier by one or more of the three analyses. An x
indicates that the school residual was four standard errors of estimate or more above (or
below) the school' s predicted level of achievement based on 2008 data (a very high
standard for statistical significance but reasonable given the number of statistical analyses
done). The columns of the table divide the analyses by grade level and within each grade
level by test and within each test, by the three analyses. The first set of schools in the
table are for those with positive residuals and the last set of schools are for the three
schools with negative residuals.
As can be seen in Table 1, there were 22 instances of unusually large positive or negative
residuals identified by the newspaper analysis, seven at 3rd grade, three at 4th grade, and
eleven at 5* grade. Of those 22, eight were folly replicated, meaning that both the
longitudinal analysis and the student demographic analysis also indicated that the residual
was unusually large and positive.,, Two were partially replicated. Thus, of the 4th and 5th
grade newspaper identified large residuals, they often were replicated in part or in whole.
The 4th and 5 grade analyses are;better than the 3rd grade analyses because they use as a
control achievement in 2008 in the prior grade.
The eight fully replicated newspaper results are across seven different schools. In short,
no one school was identified as having unusually large positive residuals across all grade
levels and tested subjects, To the contrary, the unusually large positive residuals that
were fully replicated were unique to a specific grade level and tested subject at a specific
school Blalock was the sole exception with two replications . One of the two partially
replicated results was in yet a ninth school. Large residuals were not systemic.
Table 2 reports the multiple correlation squared for each regression equation and
identifies the significant predictors in the regression equation. All of the R2s are
substantial as one might expect when prior achievement is used to predict subsequent
achievement. There is no real pattern to these R2s, other than that in most cases, roughly
half of the variance is accounted for by the predictors. Perhaps surprising, the
longitudinal analyses did not yield the highest R2s, yet the longitudinal analyses used the
same students in 2008 to predict their performance in 2009. In all cases, the 2008
achievement level was a significant predictor of the achievement level in 2009. In the
student demographic analyses, there were as many as five significant predictors in
addition to prior achievement. Student, disability and economically disadvantaged were
the two most common significant predictor, with gender and enrollment next. The
general conclusions from these results are first, the information was a good predictor of
performance in 2009 and second, the student demographic analysis, using changes in
student body composition as predictors, worked in the sense that several of these
variables were significant predictors and so, helped to control for shifts in demographics.
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_0091 17
737
As has been described, the longitudinal analysis was based on only the students that were
tested in the same school, both in2009 and 2008. Table 3 gives the percentages of
students tested in 2009 that were tested in the same school in 2008 for each of the schools
identified as having an unusually large residual. As seen in Table 3, statewide retention
rate school-wide was 76.59% and the Atlanta retention rate was 67.50. From grade 3 to
grade 4, the analogous percentages are 74.78 and 66.28 and for grade 4 to grade 5, the
percentages are 78.42 statewide and 68.78 for Atlanta. Clearly, year to year stability for
students attending the same school is greater in the state than it is in Atlanta. Table 3
gives the results for each individual school and the columns for grade 3 to grade 4 and
grade 4 to grade 5 are most relevant to interpreting the longitudinal analyses. In both
cases, Blalock had the lowest student stability rate, only 39.34% for grade 3 to grade 4
and 45.10% for grade 4 to grade 5. One might imagine with the relatively low stability
for Blalock, newspaper results might be less likely to be replicated, but that is not fully
borne out in the results. Blalock was identified by the newspaper as having an unusually
large positive residual for grade 3 English Language Arts and Mathematics, grade 4
English Language Arts, grade 5 English Language Arts and Mathematics. Of those five
large positive residuals for the newspaper analysis, two were fully replicated, and two
were in 3rd grade. No other patterns emerge from Table 3.
Size of Residuals
When interpreting the results in Table 1, a good question to ask is how large were these
unusually large residuals? In short, while they were unusually large, in terms of being
more than four standard errors from what was predicted, were they also large in terms of
the scale score metric? In Georgia, scale scores are not vertically equated, making it
impossible to compare a score in one grade level to a score in another grade level Scale
scores are, however, equated from one year to the next so that comparisons overtime
within grade and subject are possible. They are structured to range from 650 to 900 or
above. For grades 3. 4, and 5, 650 is the lowest possible score for each of the three tests.
The highest possible score is 920 for Reading, 930 for English Language Arts, and 990
for Mathematics, indicating a greater possible range of scores for Mathematics than for
English Language Arts and for English Language Arts than for Reading. For the data in
the state-provided analysis fde, standard deviations for English Language Arts and
Reading were about 1 1.5, regardless of grade level, with the exception of grade 5
Reading where the standard deviation was 10. 1 . The mathematics standard deviations
were larger, ranging from 18.6 for grade 3 to 19.7 for grade 4 and grade 5.
In Table 4, each of the residuals identified by one or another of the three regression
analyses that exceeded four standard errors are reported in bold. The largest residuals are
for 5th grade Mathematics. West Manor, residuals, for which the newspaper finding was
fully replicated, are 74.72 for the newspaper analysis, 75.42 for the longitudinal analysis,
and 68.72 for the student demographic analysis. These results are 3^1 standard deviations
in size, which would be seen as large by any standard. For example, in education
research, when the size of the effect of an intervention is being described, it is often
described in terms of numbers of -standard deviations. An intervention that has an effect
size of .5 standard deviations is seen to be a strong intervention.
4
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL 0091 ig
738
For the replicated results, Table 4 indicates which analysis found the largest residual.
The pattern was for the longitudinal analysis to yield the largest residual. For example, in
Perkerson and Usher Elementary Schools 5* grade Reading, the longitudinal analyses got
by far the largest positive residual in comparison to the other two analyses. We believe
that the best control for shifts in student body composition from '08-'09 is represented in
the longitudinal analyses, yet often these were also the largest residuals.
Table 5 reports the average residuals for Atlanta public schools :by grade, tested subject,
and each of the three analyses. First, statewide, the residuals have to average to zero; that
is a statistical fact. Each regression predicts values and the average predicted values
equal the average actual values. For some schools, the prediction is lower than the
achievement level obtained; for others, it's higher. In Table 5, it is clear that the average
residuals for the Atlanta public schools do not differ much from zero. In short, across al!
schools in Atlanta, they are no more likely on average to have a large positive (or a large
negative) residual than schools elsewhere in the state. Second, while there are
differences across the three analyses, none are striking. All are less than five scale score
points. Nevertheless the standard deviations of residuals are systematically larger for
Atlanta schools than for the state,' with a. tendency for the greatest variance in Atlanta to
be for the student demographic residuals.
In Table 4, we can also investigate the possibility that the unusually large positive or
negative residuals identified, each of which exceeded the four standard errors of estimate
criterion for size, might hide nearly as large positive or negative residuals that just missed
the four standard errors criterion. Not surprisingly, there are additional large positive and
negative residuals, but not as many as might be expected. For 5th grade, Mathematics,
Perkerson has systematically large positive residuals that didn't meet the four standard
errors criterion. The residuals for Usher in 5th grade Mathematics are large and positive
across all three analyses despite not being flagged in the newspaper analyses. In English
Language Arts at the 5th grade level, all three regression analyses showed fairly large
positive residuals for Benteen Elementary School, but only two,.of them matched the four
standard errors or more criterion. j.
In 4* grade for Reading, the negative residual for Toomer comes close to being fully
replicated as there was a large negative residual for the longitudinal analysis as well that
again didn't meet the four standard errors criterion. For English Language Arts, the
Blalock and Peyton Forest newspaper identified schools could be considered fully
replicated, as both the longitudinal and student demographic analyses estimated large
positive residuals as well. For 3,d grade English Language Arts, the Blalock large
positive residual identified by the newspaper could be considered replicated by the
student demographic analysis even though the residual didn't quite meet the four standard
errors criterion. '
We looked at the report "2009 CRCT Analysis by School Report" on the Governor's
Office of Student Achievement website. In that report, they list the "percent of classes
flagged in the erasure analysis." Eight of the 12 schools flagged by the newspaper
5
GOSA^APS_AEF_EL_0091 19
739
analysis have 2/3 or more of their classes flagged in the erasure analysis. The erasure
analysis was done on the spring 2009 data just the same as the residua! regression
analyses.
Summary
Over the course of the last several months, several analyses have been conducted of
student achievement in Georgia public schools with an eye toward identifying possible
instances of cheating. One set of those analyses focused on changes between results in
2007/8 and 2008/9 for grades 3, 4, and 5. on each of the tested subjects, English Language
Arts, Reading, and Mathematics. The analyses reported by Heather Vogell in the
Atlantic Journal - Constitution used a prior grade in 2008 to predict the following grades
in 2009 for all of the students in the school in those two years and those grade levels for
each of the schools in the state. The newspaper analysis identified 12 schools in Atlanta
for which there were unusually large residuals.
The analyses reported here replicated those newspaper results. The analyses went on to
explore the validity of those newspaper results by conducting analyses based just on
students who stayed in the same school for testing in 2008 and then again testing in 2009
at the: next grade level. These are called the longitudinal results. We also added shifts in
student demographics as control variables to the newspaper analyses and these were
called the student demographic analyses. Both the longitudinal analysis and the student
demographic analysis were meant to provide controls not provided in the newspaper
analyses for shifts from one year to the next in student demographics that might have
accounted for the unusually large positive and occasionally negative residuals the
newspaper identified and that might be an indicator of possible cheating. Newspaper
findings not replicated would be suspect, having not had adequate controls.
First, the size of the positive and occasional negative residuals were often large, as many
as 3 or 4 standard deviations in size. Second, many of the newspaper results were
replicated with both the longitudinal and student demographic analyses. Not all
newspaper results were replicated and as might be expected, the additional analyses
identified additional subjects and grade levels in the already identified schools that might
also be outliers having unusually large or occasionally unusually large negative residuals.
No additional Atlanta schools were identified by these two additional analyses.
We weren't given the more recent erasure analyses published by the governor's office of
student achievement at the grade and tested subject level, only at the school level. Eight
of the 12 newspaper flagged schools had 2/3 or more of their classes flagged in the
erasure analysis.
In summary, controlling for shifts in student demographics from 2008 to 2009 through
the longitudinal analyses and the student demographic analyses did not in large part
negate the newspaper findings. Schools with unusually large residuals indicating that the
school did much better or much worse than would have been expected based on prior
achievement found in one analysis tended to be replicated in the other analyses, as well as
in the erasure analyses.
6
GO S A_APS J\EF_EL_009 120
740
These results do not prove that cheating occurred, but they do point to student
achievement gains and losses that are highly unusual and for which cheating could be one
explanation. Nevertheless, unusually large residuals were not systemic across grade
levels and tested subjects in a school, suggesting that the unusually large residuals are
localized to specific grades and subjects. Further, the average residuals for Atlanta
schools were comparable to the average residuals for schools statewide. To the extent
that there were unusually large positive residuals, these were offset by unusually large
negative residuals in Atlanta schools. The standard deviations of residuals were,
however, larger for Atlanta schools than for schools statewide. In short, there were more
large positive and negative residuals for Atlanta schools than was typical for schools in
the rest of the state. Finally, it is also true that if a school cheated in 2008 to get better
student achievement performance and then cheated again in 2009 in the same way,
neither the newspaper analysis, nor our longitudinal and student demographic analyses
would flag this school as an outlier with an unusually large residual.
7
GO S A_APS_AEF_EL_009 1 2 1
741
Table 1 :
Regression Analyses
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Readin
Mat
Readin
Mat
Readin
Mat
ELA
S
h
ELA
a
h
ELA
0
h
School Name
ID
A
S C
A
B
c
A
B
C
A
E C
A
B C
A B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Perkersort
n/
Elementary
296
a
n/
n/a
X
n/a
X
X
X
Usher Elementary
604
256
a
nl
n/a
n/a
X
X
X
X
Venetian
8
X
a
X
n/a
n/a
West Manor
256
nl
Elementary
9
a
n/a
X
n/a
X
X
X
X
Peyton Forest
306
n/
n?a
Elementary
5
405
a
n/
n/a
X
X X
X
X
Blalook Elementary
2
505
X
a
n/
n/a
X
n/a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Benteen Elementary
1
a
X
n/a
n/a
X
X
X
Capitol View
505
n/
Elementary
4
555
a
n/
X
n/a
n/a
Dunbar Elementary
e
a
n/a
n/a
X
X
X
F. L. Stanton
556
n/
Elementary
6
105
a
n/
X
n/a
n/a
Bethune*
2
556
a
n/
n/a
n/a
X
Toomer Elementary*
7
a
n/a
X
n/a
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOTE: "indicates the r
residuals were negative Note: Column A =
(school performed Newspaper;Columri B =
significantly worse than Longitudinal; Column C =
predicted) | | Student Perns
8
GOS A_APS_AEF_EL_l)05> 1 22
742
■J
Table 2: Significant Predictors
Grade
Subject
Analysis
R2
Significant Predictors
Grade
3
ELA
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.72
n/a
0.57
ela 08
ela 08
econ. disadvantaged
disability
Read
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.76
n/a
0.78
read 08
read DB
female
american indian
econ. disadvantaged
disability
Math
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.71
n/a
0.67
math
08
math
08
enrollment
econ.disadvantaged
disability
Grade
4
ELA
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.72
0,56
0.56
ela D8
ela 06
ela 0B
female
multiracial
econ. disadvantaged
disability
LEP
read
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.78
0.50
0.64
read 08
read OS
read 08
female
hispanic
multiracial
math
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.69
0.64
0.64
math
08
math
08
math
08
multiracial
Grade
5
ELA
newspaper'
longitudinal
school dem
0.73
0.58
0.72
ela 06
ela 08
ela 08
enrollment
econ. disadvantaged
disability
read
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.77
0.59
0.73
read 08
read 08
read 0B
econ.disadvantaged
disability
math
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.62
0.66
0.64
math
08
math
08
math
03
enrollment
econ. disadvantaged
disability
9
GOSA_APS_AEF_ELJ)09 1 23
743
Table 3: Percent of students tested in 2009 that were tested in the same school in 200B
School Name
ID
school-
wide % 08
to OS
overlap
Gr3 08 to
Gr4 09. %
overlap
Gr4 OS to
Gr5 09 %
overlap
STATE RETENTION RATE
76.59
74.78
78.42
APS AVERAGE RETENTION RATE
67.50
66.28
68.78
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL RETENTION
Perkerson Elementary School
296
60.34
64.44
57.75
Usher Elementary School
604
72.31
66.13
77.94
Venetian
256a.
61,76
ei.BZ
61.70
West Manor Elementary School
2569
75.53
73,68
76.38
Peyton Forest Elementary School
3065
65.57
63.64
67.83
Blalock Elementary School
4052
41.96
39.34
45.10
Benteen Elementary School
5051 ■
63.37
69.49
54.76
Capitol View Elementary School
5054
71.79
67.86
74.00
Dunbar Elementary School
5558
51.56
51.35
51,85
F. L Stanton Elementary School
5566 ! 67.86
66.13
70,00
Beth une*
1052 | 70.42
70.42
70,42
Toomer Elementary School*
S56T | 56.60
51.85
61.54
10
GOSA>PS_AEF_EL_0()9 1 24
744
Table 4
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
ELA
Read
Math
ELA
Read
Math
ELA
Read
Math
School
ID
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
STATE
AVERAGE RAW
RESDIUALS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
D.O
0,0
0,0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
□ ,0
0,0
0.0
' 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
APS AVERAGE
RESIDUALS
-1.6
4S
2.9
D.1
-1.4
-3.3
0.2
1.7
-4.4
-0.4
0.3
0.3
-0,5
-0.8
-3.3
11
2.9
0.8
0.6
(.0
0.3
1.0
1.4
-0.5
INDIVIDUAL
SCHOOL
RESIDUALS
Perkersun
296
to. 6
11 i
19.7
26.D
13.5
16,3
10,5
-4,6
17.0
13.1
21.1
21.4
13.3
-9.5
-S.7
0.9
13.3
1,5
26.5
34.2
24.0
23.3
20.6
18.2
Usher
604
22.B
16.1
4,0
9,7
12,7
12.1
2.0
4,9
3.7
6.5
9.5
6.5
12.B
13.2
13.2
13.3
22.4
13.8
22.0
31.5
22.5
29.7
45.2
27.1
Venetian
2508
Z9.B
T.6
27.1
17.5
16.4
-e.i
-7.7
2,7
-4.8
S.2
24.5
10.0
13.5
0.6
10.9
15-8
11.6
13.5
17.5
15.1
14.6
3.6
2,5
0.0
West
Manor
256B
13.5
8.6 .
19.7
37.1
18.3
48.4
5.4
1.2
-1.5
7,7
3.1
11.2
4.4
-0,3
28
16.3
1B.B
16.5
10.3
8.8
9.1
74.7
75.4
68.7
Peyton
Forest
3D85
2.8
18.0
-5.6
1.6
15.5
B.a
29.0
30.2
28,7
16.1
27,9
16,3
59.3
64.0
60.2
19.3
22.0
18,5
19,6
18.7
17,4
12.8
14.6
8.9
BlaiocK
1052
35.8
Z7.5
22.4
11.S
40,0
21.3
24.6
18.2
24.3
12.6
12.1
10.2
3.1
5,9
8.5
40.5
to.:
40.3
10.1
3.6
8.3
72.0
67,1
65.0
Bente&n
5051
-4.1
-1.2
31.2
4.5
35,5
31.3
14,6
19,2
15.2
11.9
-0.5
10.2
5.7
6.3
7.9
25.1
50.1
239
11.2
26.3
9.2
7.3
15,3
4.2
Capitol
View
5D54
23.4
-7.5
33.0
-3.5
25.3
6.1
15.7
-0.5
16.3
17.6
-7.9
20.3
2.2
10.0
-1.3
•0.5
2.7
-1.3
9.5
11.8
8.8
-0.3
-5.5
-3.8
Dunbar
5558
-B.1
1.3
0.2
-o.s
1.4
11 .8
22.3
20.1
17.2
-1 .4
10.9
0.4
37.5
39.1
38.7
-3.6
21,6
0.0
21.7
27.S
23.4
9.5
14.8
121
F. L.
Stanton
5566
4.7
5.2
24.4
13.D
11.5
9.3
-1.3
0.0
3.0
-0.4
-0,3
-3.3
-9.2
120
-7.7
20.1
19,1
20.6
13,0
10.7
12.7
19.1
15.4
16.6
BethunE"
1D52
-1.1
-6,4
-0.3
-20
-3.6
13.7
13.9
11.B
7,1
6.6
1,2
8.3
9.1
6.4
7,6
18.0
16.4
17.1
21.t
18.4
19.3
34.0
29,4
31.2
ToDmer*
5567
-4.2
-9,4
4.1
24.7
29.5
28.1
16.4
-4.6
-6.0
33 .S
29.3
34.6
13.2
231
21,1
S4.5
46.0
43.5
25.B
22.5
18.7
-6.2
-4,5
-4,3
MOTF: * inrlir.Rtes thfi residues were
negative (school performed significantly
worse than predicted)
Note: - indicates entries of n/a
Bolded cells are subject/grades
that were identified as outliers
11
GOS A^APS_AEF_EL_009 1 25
745
Table 5: Average Residuals and Standard Deviations for the Atlanta Schools
Standardized Residuals
Unstandardized Residuals
Average
APS
Residual
APS
Residual
SD
State
Residual
SD
Average
. APS
Residual
APS
Residual
SD
State
Residual
SD
newspaper
I , / o /
l uvo
- 1 .0 J
1 0.B41
6.1 93
longitudinal
n/a
n/a
ELA
school dem
-0.54
1,177
0.995
-4.60
10,060
8.501
newspaper
' 0.51
1 .616
1.003
2.9D
10.474
5.714
longitudinal
n/a
n/a
Read
school dem
0.02
1.82Q
0.995
0,10
9.406
5.142
newspaper
-0.14
1.492
1.004
-1.35
15.051
10.011
longitudinal
n/a
n/a
Grade 3
Math
school dem
-0.29
1.326
0.995
-3.26
14,921
11.200
newspaper
0.04
1.720
1.003
0.20
10,430
6.080
longitudinal
0.20
1 ,320'
1,000
1.69
11.091
8.399
ELA
school dem
-0,45
2,763
0.995
-4,44
27.562
8.851
newspaper
-0.08
' 1.804
1.002
-0.40
9.794
5.388
longitudinal
0,03
1.183
1.000
0.27
12.039
10.169
read
school dem
0.03
1.274
0.995
0.29
11.120
8.680
newspaper
-0.06
1.465
1.004
-0.51
14.308
9.741
ongitudinai
-0.07
1.383
1.000
-0.76
15.419
11.107
Grade 4
math
school dem
-0.26
2.243
0.965
-3.26
28.469
12.627
newspaper
0.19
2. 163
1,006
1,10
12,745
5.862
longitudinal
0.35
1.719
1,000
2.B8
14,003
8.143
ELA
school dem
0.13
1.950
0.995
0.79
12.148
6,199
newspaper
0.15
2.146
1.005
0.80
10.362
4.816
longitudinal
0.16
1,838
1.000
1.01
11.504
6.257
read
school dem
0.05
1.938
0.995
0.27
' 9.714
4.9BS
newspaper
0.09
1.608
1.008
1,04
19.636
12.171
longitudinal
0.13
1.708
1.000
1.40
19.001
11.132
Grade 5
math
school dem
-0.04
1.601
0.995
-0.47
17.791
4.966
12
GOS A_APS_AEF_EL_009 1 26
746
13
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_0<>9 1 17
747
TeNe 6: KesiauEJsfgi ths12Ne**fiflperliJefSri6ll£Qiccly
Bra* 3
Grade 4
"~tO
Uslh
Read
Mslh
Rent
Name-
D
A □
C
A B
C
a 3
C
A
i)
A
B
C
A
B
C
A,
B
C
A.
B
C
A
S
C
STAT! AUEBSCE
(joints)
SD2
2.14
tB
-1 30
3,51
T.71
D.6S
2.4E
Q.4B
•2.83
-3 Si
-D,2D
□.60
0.46
B,53
6,13
B.12
2.41
4.43:
-1.1S
■G.23
14W
UB6
S.2D
jSPS AVERAGE
GAIN
am
ASH
.2.46
-039
1.2B
S.Bi
0.S2
2.15
■ 5.62
.325
.3. 77
.1-25
1.SC
DJD2
.Q.32
sua
4SB
i5.SO
-0S7
.1,42
1572
20 JS
10.3S
L'tLiiUliijAL
&GYHH>L GAMS
PBrtceieoi
296
1&.34 -
1622
m.32-
2E.JJ
1S.40 -
30.36
-9.44
.O.SO
■7 .47"
11. 7S
1S7B
1562
■B3S
•i.SS
JUKI
BJJ7
2B.S1
ejjo
3633
4CIII7
0 stiff
-21.02 -
-1B5Z
-
3.30
-lO.fft -
-3.15
1-Z3
1.44
-16.37
2,W
5.10
-14.2S
14 S2
-10.33
14.Z1
13.48
iejs
45.74
SS.E5
^rwtian
2568
K.S4-
3.35
21.45 -
13.83
17.14 .
.5-14
-C4S
-5.1 B
40:53
1^45
.-l7j5S
3.60
31 J4
1B4fi
13-se
3.14
1645
31 .3T
2iK
-13,34-
BBS
iasa-
]S,M
30.3S -
Hll
5,14-
-2.43
7.3?
4 04
■3JS
4.«
2S
4.18
JESS-
3i ,n
SJA1
17J4
4,10
U»
10,11
IJ.S?
S4.SJ
M4t
Pcvtcn
30B5
5.24 -
2a m
-12.S0-
-DID
-8.14 »
17.^
29.05
32.57
E.ra
12.48
23.44
12.70
C3*4
40,34
71 76
5051
22.17
if,i»
16,73
8.26
2B£2
32.D0
20.21
4DS2
41.T1 -
30 20
1?,«1 -
10.63
*U4"
30.26
20.1 T
2S.73
nr
iaia
6 13
2746
3fl-1>
s.ae
-Q.74
■Q.49
fft,S1i
*«.74
46.S4
Eeilttn
SCSI
o,rz-
2*.-W -
D.K1
35.S1 -
^6.24
16J»
23,54
le.io
•MS
-5,41
5.43
tSjSt
S.EO
JIM
J*.12
C.90
«J1
22.52
2235
54,56
2S.10
SCSI
2S.B3-
-15.46
21l.4t-
-B.33
26.23-
5.7S
-1S.19
-13.1 5
-10.53
-26.18
-2132
■4.B2
1.7B
4.96
CSB
-13D
-14S3
BST
073
■21 .13
13S4
11 EE
2.72
5*s3
40.5-
6.33
•4.10-
.1.25
1.B-
281 <
7tCO
3 E.I
-2.S3
-IS. -EE
.6.11
4733
4S.11
18,43
14£
26 43
-10.89
11,11
4.27
33 £4
29 .S2
f,i.
55E6
».h 9-
3,31
1«.fT -
6.3
-1 te
179
.4.95
.(«
1(1(18
-15 »
.15.0?
SJ3-
24 SS
1SE2
1613
SE2
SJ2
.10J33
337S
33 as
1WM
Be* funs'
1052
S.OS-
-032
Jt.tr-
-0.45
-2,37 -
-1,S»
1S.1S
14.61
3.73
no
-Dte
■7.75
WJS5
S.t'l
S.88
-13«
-10 SD
0.2S
iT.41
-2174
i!2
-1B.45
-10J4
■7.D1
Toomer*
S36?
4.16-
.75«
• iE.iH
-24.50"
,irai
-6 .SO
■St.16
-4H.4S
-4207
1433
21 .9)
13,70
JS4.S2
^«,5*
-43 St
54.S1
6,17
13£1
6.25
Belied leJLe ere
Mate: Calimn Arr Neyvpaper;
14
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_009 1 2S
748
i age ivu
ANDREW PORTER
From: Beverly Half [drbeveriyhall@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:41 AM
To: ANDREW PORTER
Subject: Re: Atlanta report on analyses
Andy,
I apologize but I just saw this email, I will read the report and get back to you.
Thanks, *
BH
On Tue, May 1 8, 20 1 0 at 1 :04 PM, ANDREW PORTER <andvp@gse.upenn.edu> wrote:
Beverly,
The other day, I sent Bill the final report on our analyses. ! haven't heard from him, sa I'm sending you a copy
directly. I hope you find this report useful.
Alt the best,
Andy
11/20/2010
GOSA_APS_PORTER 000001
749
May 11, 2010
Identifying Atlanta Elementary Schools that Had Unusually Large Gains in Student
Achievement Test Scores from the Year 2007/8 to the Year 2008/9
Andrew C. Porter
Jennifer McMaken
University of Pennsylvania
In high stakes student achievement testing, the validity of results is especially important.
Validity can be compromised in any one of a number of ways, one of which is through
cheating. In December of 2009, the Atlantic Journal - Constitution raised the possibility
of cheating in Georgia schools by noting "improbably steep gains at some schools on
tests taken first in spring and then in summer" (June 1 1 , 2009). Apparently, that
prompted the governor's Office of Student Achievement for the state of Georgia to
conduct erasure analyses that identified four schools in the state where a large number of
student wrong answers had been erased and filled in with the correct answers "causing
passing rates on the state's criterion-referenced competency tests to spike" (June 11,
2009). In an October 18, 2009 issue of the Atlantic Journal - Constitution, reporter
Heather Vogell, working with data analyst John Perry, reported on the results from
regression analyses using spring 2007/8 results to predict spring 2008/9 results for grades
3, 4, and 5 for each of the tests in English Language Arts, Reading, and Mathematics for
the elementary schools in Georgia, Statewide, 19 schools were identified with
"extraordinary gains or drops in scores between spring last year and this year. A dozen
were in Atlanta" (October 19, 2009). Vogell wondered whether cheating might have
occurred in these schools, which did substantially better or worse than was predicted
from the schools' student achievement levels the spring before.
Overview of Analysis Plan
The Atlanta Education Fund contacted the authors of this report to ask if we would do
analyses to determine the "accuracy, the validity of the AJC's findings and identify
alternative explanations for what is found." Our analyses were to be focused on just the
2007/8 and 2008/9 years in just the grades 3, 4, and 5, as analyzed by the newspaper.
We asked about analyses that extended beyond grades 3, 4, and 5, the focus of the
newspaper analyses, to include grades 3 through 8 on which there is annual testing. We
were advised to stay focused on grades 3, 4, and 5. We asked the state for teacher-level
data so we could look at not only variance between schools, but also variance among
teachers within schools, but the state could not supply. We asked for item-level
responses so we could do some erasure analyses, but again the state could not supply.
On December 3, 2009, we agreed to undertake the requested analyses. We immediately
requested the necessary data from Melissa Fincher of the Georgia Department of
Education. Data were obtained in a file suitable for analysis on January 28, 2009. The
file did not contain second grade results. These data were requested on March 3, 2010
and received on April 15, 2010.
1
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_0 14610
750
Replication of Newspaper Results
Our First analyses sought to replicate the results of the newspaper analyses. The
newspaper regressed 2008/9 school-level achievement means on 2007/8 school level
achievement means for each of the three grades and each of the three tests: English
Language Arts, Reading, and Mathematics. The newspaper calculated residuals for each
school in the state with grades 3, 4, and 5 where a residua! is defined as the school's
actual mean level performance in comparison to its predicted mean level performance for
spring 2009 based on achievement in 2008 for the grade prior. Schools with residuals
larger than 4 standard eflrors of estimate were identified as outliers. Using the same
analysis fde as used by the newspaper, we were able to replicate the newspaper results.
As will be seen below, when we used the database we received from the state, the
newspaper results were only partly replicated. We are not sure why the newspaper
provided database and the state provided database were different. The newspaper
database only contained school level results while the state database had student level
results which we then aggregated to the school level.
Two Additional Analyses to Test Validity of Newspaper Results
The newspaper results were based on all students in each of the two years. Thus, the
results did not control for possible changes in student body composition. To control for
possible changes, we completed two analyses. First, we did analyses on longitudinal
data. The analyses are based on only the students in a grade at 2009 that were in the
same school in 2008 and had test scores for 2008, For example, the 5th graders in 2009
were 4th graders at the same school in 2008. As yet a third analysis, we regressed 2009
on 2008 data at the school level, just as did the newspaper, but we added as control
variables 12 difference variables contrasting the composition of the group of students in
2009 to the composition in 2008. These variables were differences in: enrollment,
female, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, multiracial, economically
disadvantaged, disability, LEP, migrant. We call these regression analyses "student
demographic."
Results of all Three Analyses
Table 1 summarizes the results of four regression analyses: newspaper, newspaper
analysis on state supplied database, longitudinal, and student demographic. The rows in
the table indicate Atlanta schools with grades 3, 4, and 5 that were identified as an outlier
by one or more of the three analyses. An x indicates that the school residual was four
standard errors of estimate or more above (or below) the school1 s predicted level of
achievement based on 2008 data (a very high standard for statistical significance but
reasonable given the number of statistical analyses done). The columns of the table
divide the analyses by grade level and within each grade level- by test and within each
test, by the three analyses. The first set of schools in the table are for those with positive
residuals and the last set of schools are for the two schools with negative residuals.
As can be seen in Table 1 , there were 22 instances of unusually large positive or negative
residuals identified by the original newspaper analysis, seven at 3rd grade, four at 4th
grade, and eleven at 5th grade. Fourteen of the 22 newspaper identified large residuals
2
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_014611
751
were replicated and 8 were not, The newspaper style regression on the state supplied data
did not identify any new instances of unusually large residuals. Of those 22, eight were
found in both the longitudinal analysis and the student demographic analysis; five were
found in the demographic analysis only and one was found in the longitudinal only.
Eight unusually large residuals found in the newspaper analyses were not found in either
the longitudinal nor the demographic. Three unusually large residuals found in the
longitudinal analyses were not found in either the newspaper nor demographic analyses;
the demographic analysis did not identify any unusually large residuals unique to that
analysis. Thus, of the newspaper, identified large residuals, more than half held up in part
or in whole in our additional two analyses; 14 of the 22 were found in at least one of the
two additional analyses with better controls.
The eight fully supported newspaper results are across seven different schools. In short,
no one school was identified as having unusually large positive residuals across all grade
levels and tested subjects. To the contrary, the unusually large positive residuals that
were fully supported were unique to a specific grade level and tested subject at a specific
school, Blalock was the sole exception with two. One of the two partially supported
results was in yet a ninth school. Large residuals were not systemic,
Table 2 reports the multiple correlation squared for each regression equation and
identifies the significant predictors in the regression equation. All of the R2s are
substantial as one might expect when prior achievement is used to predict subsequent
achievement. There is no real pattern to these R2s, Roughly from half to three fourths of
the variance is accounted for by the predictors, Perhaps surprising, the longitudinal
analyses did not yield the highest R2s, yet the longitudinal analyses used the same
students in 2008 to predict their performance in 2009. In all cases, the 2008 achievement
level was a significant predictor of the achievement level in 2009, In the student
demographic analyses, there were as many as five significant predictors in addition to
prior achievement. Student disability and economically disadvantaged were the two most
common significant predictors, with gender and enrollment next, The general
conclusions from these results are first, the information was a good predictor of
performance in 2009 and second, the student demographic analysis, using changes in
student body composition as predictors, worked in the sense that several of these
variables were significant predictors and so, helped to control for shifts in demographics.
As has been described, the longitudinal analysis was based on only the students that were
tested in the same school, both in 2009 and 2008. Table 3 gives the percentages of
students tested in 2009 that were tested in the same school in 2008 for each of the schools
identified as having an unusually large residual. As seen in Table 3, statewide stability
rate school-wide across grades 3, 4, and 5 was 74.63% and the Atlanta retention rate was
67,43. From grade 2 to grade 3, the analogous percentages are 70, 17 and 66.51 and for
grade 3 to grade 4, the percentages are 74.78 statewide and 66,28 for Atlanta and grades
4 to 5, 78.42 and 68.78. Clearly, year to year stability for students attending the same
school is greater in the state than it is in Atlanta. Table 3 gives the results for each
individual school. Blalock had the lowest student stability rate, only 39,34% for grade 3
to grade 4, 45.10% for grade 4 to grade 5, and 41.38% for grade 2 to grade 3. One might
3
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_014612
752
imagine with the relatively low stability for Blalock, newspaper results might be less
likely to be replicated, but that is not fully borne out in the results. Blalock was identified
by the newspaper as having an unusually large positive residual for grade 3 English
Language Arts and Mathematics, grade 4 English Language Arts, grade 5 English
Language Arts and Mathematics. Of those five large positive residuals for the newspaper
analysis, two were fully supported, and one partially supported by the student
demographic analysis. No other patterns emerge from Table 3.
Size of Residuals
When interpreting the results in Table 1, a good question to ask is how large were these
unusually large residuals? In short, while they were unusually large, in terms of being
more than four standard errors from what was predicted, were they also large in terms of
the scale score metric? In Georgia, scale scores are not vertically equated, making it
impossible to compare a score in one grade level to a score in another grade level. Scale
scores are, however, equated from one year to the next so that comparisons over time
within grade and subject are possible. They are structured to range from 650 to 900 or
above. For grades 3, 4, and 5, 650 is the lowest possible score for each of the three tests.
The highest possible score is 920 for Reading, 930 for English Language Arts, and 990
for Mathematics, indicating a greater possible range of scores for Mathematics than for
English Language Arts and for English Language Arts than for Reading. For the data in
the state-provided analysis file, standard deviations for English Language Arts and
Reading were about 11.5, regardless of grade level, with the exception of grade 5
Reading where the standard deviation was 10.1. The mathematics standard deviations
were larger, ranging from 18,6 for grade 3 to 19,7 for grade 4 and grade 5,
In Table 4, each of the residuals identified by one or another of the three regression
analyses that exceeded four standard errors are reported in bold. The largest residuals are
for 5th grade Mathematics. West Manor residuals, for which the newspaper finding was
fully supported, are 74.72 for the newspaper analysis, 75.42 for the longitudinal analysis,
and 68.72 for the student demographic analysis. These results are 3-4 standard deviations
in size, which would be seen as large by any standard. For example, in education
research, when the size of the effect of an intervention is being described, it is often
described in terms of numbers of standard deviations. An intervention that has an effect
size of .5 standard deviations is seen to be a strong intervention.
For the supported results, Table 4 indicates which analysis found the largest residual.
The pattern was for the longitudinal analysis to yield the largest residual, For example, in
Perkerson and Usher Elementary Schools 5th grade Reading, the longitudinal analyses got
by far the largest positive residual in comparison to the other two analyses. We believe
that the best control for shifts in student body composition from '08-'09 is represented in
the longitudinal analyses, yet often these were also the largest residuals.
Table 5 reports the average residuals for Atlanta public schools by grade, tested subject,
and each of the three analyses. First, statewide, the residuals have to average to zero; that
is a statistical fact. Each regression predicts values and the average predicted values
equal the average actual values. For some schools, the prediction is lower than the
4
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_0 14613
753
achievement level obtained; for others, it' s higher. In Table 5, it is clear that the average
residuals for the Atlanta public schools do not differ much from zero. In short, across all
schools in Atlanta, they are no more likely on average to have a large positive (or a large
negative) residual than schools elsewhere in the state. Second, while there are
differences across the three analyses, none are striking. All are less than five scale score
points. Nevertheless the standard deviations of residuals are systematically larger for
Atlanta schools than for the state, with a tendency for the greatest variance in Atlanta to
be for the student demographic residuals. The larger variance for Atlanta than for the
state is consistent with the greater number of large positive or negative residuals for
Atlanta. V
In Table 4, we can also investigate the possibility that the unusually large positive or
negative residuals identified, each of which exceeded the four standard errors of estimate
criterion for size, might hide nearly as large positive or negative residuals that just missed
the four standard errors criterion. Not surprisingly, there are additional large positive and
negative residuals, but not as many as might be expected. For 5th grade Mathematics,
Perkerson has systematically large positive residuals that didn't meet the four standard
errors criterion. The residuals for Usher in 5* grade Mathematics are large and positive
across al! three analyses despite not being flagged in the newspaper analyses. In English
Language Arts at the 5th grade level, all three regression analyses showed fairly large
positive residuals for Benteen Elementary School, but only two of them matched the four
standard errors or more criterion.
In 4th grade for Reading, the negative residual for Toomer comes close to being fully
supported as there was a large negative residual for the longitudinal analysis as well that
again didn't meet the four standard errors criterion. For English Language Arts, the
Blalock and Peyton Forest newspaper identified schools could be considered fully
supported, as both the longitudinal and student demographic analyses estimated large
positive residuals as well. For 3rd grade English Language Arts, the Blalock large
positive residual identified by the newspaper could be considered supported by the
longitudinal analysis even though the residual didn't quite meet the four standard errors
criterion.
Using a scale score residual of 15.00 or larger as a criterion, 41 of the 108 school by
subject by grade level combinations had large residuals across all three analyses. Still,
not one of the 12 schools was flagged across all grades and subjects.
We looked at the report "2009 CRCT Analysis by School Report" on the Governor's
Office of Student Achievement website. In that report, they list the "percent of classes
flagged in the erasure analysis." Eight of the 12 schools flagged by the newspaper
analysis have 2/3 or more of their classes flagged in the erasure analysis. The erasure
analysis was done on the spring 2009 data just the same as the residual regression
analyses.
In order to determine the impact of the outliers on district-level performance, we
compared the 2009 residuals for all students to the residuals when the students in grade
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_0 146 1 4
754
levels and tested subjects flagged as having unusually large positive outliers were deleted
from the sample. Because our longitudinal analyses are the most convincing, we
identified large positive outliers based solely on longitudinal results.
There were no outliers identified in grade 4 English Language Arts, nor Reading, Forty
three students were eliminated for the reduced sample because of outliers for 4* grade
Mathematics. For 5th grade, 63 students from English Language Arts, 132 from Reading,
and 105 from Mathematics were eliminated.
Using both the full and deduced databases, we did district level regressions for the state,
predicting '09 performance from '08 performance and calculating district level residuals.
In the case of 4th grade mathematics, the Atlanta residual went from 1.01 to -.07 after
deletion. For grade 5 English Language Arts, the Atlanta residual went from 3.00 to
2.51; for Reading, the residual went from 2.40 to 0.93 and in Math, from 3.03 to 0.58.
District residuals decreased no more than 2.5 scale score points. In contrast, large
flagged positive residuals as seen in Table 4 ranged from a low of 26.3 to a high of 75.4
scale score points. We conclude that even if the large positive outliers identified in the
longitudinal analyses were due to cheating, and we're not saying that they were,
eliminating those data from the sample had only a minimal effect upon district level
performance.
The residuals reported for the district can be thought of as an estimate of how much better
(or worse) Atlanta's performance in 2009 was from what was predicted from 2008
performance. If Atlanta were getting better over time, these residuals would be positive;
if Atlanta were getting worse over time, these residuals would be getting negative. A
look at Table 4 indicates that a large majority of the residuals for longitudinal analyses
for Atlanta calculated at the school level are positive. The district level residuals are
largely positive though not statistically significantly greater than zero. Whether or not
outliers are deleted, district level performance in 2009 was slightly but not significantly
better than predicted from 2008.
Summary
Over the course of the last several months, several analyses have been conducted of
student achievement in Georgia public schools with an eye toward identifying possible
instances of cheating. One set of those analyses focused on changes between results in
2007/8 and 2008/9 for grades 3, 4, and 5 on each of the tested subjects, English Language
Arts, Reading, and Mathematics. The analyses reported by Heather Vogell in the
Atlantic Journal - Constitution used a prior grade in 2008 to predict the following grades
in 2009 for all of the students in the school in those two years and those grade levels for
each of the schools in the state. The newspaper analysis identified 12 schools in Atlanta
for which there were unusually large residuals.
The analyses reported here investigated the validity of the newspaper results. The
analyses explored the validity of those newspaper results by conducting analyses based
just on students who stayed in the same school for testing in 2008 and then again testing
in 2009 at the next grade level. These are called the longitudinal results. We also added
6
GOSA_APS_AEF_ELJ) 14615
755
shifts in student demographics as control variables to the newspaper analyses and these
were called the student demographic analyses. Both the longitudinal analyses and the
student demographic analyses were meant to provide controls not provided in the
newspaper analyses for shifts from one year to the next in student demographics that
might have accounted for the unusually large positive and occasionally negative residuals
the newspaper identified and that might be an indicator of possible cheating, Newspaper
findings not found also in the two additional analyses with better controls would be
suspect.
First, the size of the positive and occasional negative residuals were often large, as many
as 3 or 4 standard deviations in size. Second, many of the newspaper results were
supported with both the longitudinal and student demographic analyses. Not all
newspaper results were supported and as might be expected, the additional analyses
identified additional subjects and grade levels in the already identified schools that might
also be outliers having unusually large or occasionally unusually large negative residuals.
No additional Atlanta schools were identified by these two additional analyses,
To determine the effect of identified unusually large positive outliers on district level
performance, we did district level regressions and calculated district level residuals for
each of the tested subjects in grades 3, 4, and 5. The impact on district level residuals of
deleting outliers was minimal, indicating that overall district level performance in Atlanta
improved slightly from 2008 to 2009 with or without outliers. Our two adjacent year
analyses do not address the question of the size and direction of district change in
achievement over a longer period of years.
We had access to only school level results for the more recent erasure analyses published
by the governor's office of student achievement. Eight of the 12 newspaper flagged
schools had 2/3 or more of their classes flagged in the erasure analysis.
In summary, controlling for shifts in student demographics from 2008 to 2009 through
the longitudinal analyses and the student demographic analyses did not in large part
negate the newspaper findings. Schools with unusually large residuals indicating that the
school did much better or much worse than would have been expected based on prior
achievement found in one analysis tended to be found in the other analyses, as well as in
the erasure analyses.
These results do not prove that cheating occurred, but they do point to student
achievement gains and losses that are highly unusual and for which cheating could be one
explanation. Nevertheless, unusually large residuals were not systemic across grade
levels and tested subjects in a school, suggesting that the unusually large residuals are
localized to specific grades and subjects. Further, the average residuals for Atlanta
schools were comparable to the average residuals for schools statewide. To the extent
that there were unusually large positive residuals, these were offset by unusually large
negative residuals in Atlanta schools. The standard deviations of residuals were,
however, larger for Atlanta schools than for schools statewide. In short, there were more
large positive and negative residuals for Atlanta schools than was typical for schools in
7
GOSA APS AEF EL 014616
756
the rest of the state. Finally, it is also true that if a school cheated in 2008 to get better
student achievement performance and then cheated again in 2009 in the same way,
neither the newspaper analysis, nor our longitudinal and student demographic analyses
would flag this school as an outlier with an unusually large residual.
GOSA APS AEF EL 014617
757
Table 1: Regression Analyses
Grarifi 3
firade 4
Grade 5
ELA
Reading
Math
ELA
Reading
Math
ELA
Reading
Math
School Name /A B C D
Perkerson Elementary J
Usher Elementary'
Venetian, j/ x
/West Marfor\ ^/
\Elernejtar^J /
Peyton Forest y
Elementary /
Blalock Elementary v x x x
Benteen Elementary/
Capitol View/,/
Etementary y
Dunbar Elemenlary \/
F. L. Stanton^/''
ESemerrtary
Bethune*
Taomer Elementary*
A B C D
XX X
X
XX X
XX X
X
A B C D
X
A B C D
X
X
A B C D
x x
A B C D
X X X X
A B C D
X X X X
XXX
x x x x
A B C D
X X X X
X X X X
X
X
X XX
X X
x x
A B C D
X X X x.
X X X X
Note; Column A = Newspaper Analyses; Column B = Newspaper Analysis on the data set received forthe state and on which analyses under Column C and
D are based; Column C = Longitudinal Analyses; Column D = Student Demographics Analyses
* Indicates the residuals were negative (school performed significantly worse than predicted)
9
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_014618
758
Tabte 2: Significant Predictors
Grsds Subject
Analysis
R2
Sionificant Predictors
rtBws paper
072
ela 08
ELA
renlinatian
0.62
&la 08
1 fin nitudi rial
0,43
eia 08
school dern
0.63
ela 08
enrollment
econ.dfsadvantaged disability
newspaper
0.T6
read OS
Grade
2 Read
replication
0.68
read 08
lonaitudinal
1 Vi 1 y 1 1 1 1 1 a i
0.49
read 08
school dem
0.69
read 08
enrollment
econ.disadvantaged disability
newspaper
0.71
math 06
Math
replication
0.61
math 08
longitudinal
0.50
math 08
school dem
0.62
math 08
enrollment
disability LEP
newspaper
0.72
ela 08
ELA
replication
0.47
ela 08
longitudinal
0.36
ela 08
school dem
0,56
ela 08
female
multiracial econ.disadvantaged disability LEP
newspaper
0.76
read 08
Grfe read
replication
0.61
read 06
longitudinal
0.50
read 08
school dem
0.64
read 08
female
hispanic multiracial
newspaper
0.69
math 08
math
replication
0.69
math 08
longitudinal
0.64
math 08
school dem
0.64
math 08
multiracial
newspaper
0.73
ela 08
ELA
replication
0.71
ela 08
longitudinal
0.S8
ela 08
school dem
0.72
ela 08
enrollment
econ.disadvantaged disability
newspaper
0.77
read 08
Grade .
c read
replication
0.72
read 08
longitudinal
0.59
read 08
school dem
0.73
read 08
econ.disadvantaged
disability
newspaper
0.62
math 08
math
replication
0.63
math 08
longitudinal
0,66
math 08
school dem
0.64
math 06
enrollment
econ.disadvantaged disability
10
GOSA_APS_AEF_ELJ)14619
759
Tabje 3; Percent of students lesled in 2009 that were tested in the same school in ZOOS
School Name
School Wide
08 to 09 %
Overlap
Gr2 08 to Gr3
09 % Overlap
Gr3 08 to Gr4
09 % Overlap
Gr4 08 to Gr5
09 % Overlap
STATE RETENTION RATE
74.S3
70
17
74.78
78.42
APS AVERAGE RETENTION RATE
67.43
66
51
66.28
68.78
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL RETENTION
Perkersan Eiemerrtary School
57.30
52
17
64.44
57,75
Usher Elementary School
71.50
70
00
66.13
77.94
Venetian
60.61
58
06
61.82
61 .70
West Manor Elementary School
76.06
77
08
73.68
78.38
Peytors Forest Elementary School
68.06
70
97
63.64
67.86
Blalock Elementary School
41.76
41
38
39.34
45.10
Benteen Elementary School
65.10
68
09
69.49
54.76
Capitol View Elementary School
69.87
65
91
67.86
74.00
Dunbar Elementary School
51.96
47
06
51.35
51.85
F. L. Stanton Elementary School
6B.13
68
75
66.13
70.00
Beth une
72.40
75
95
70.42
70.42
Toorner Elementary School
57.50
57
69
51.85
61.54
n
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_014620
760
Table 4: Residuals for the 1 2 Newspaper IdenWied Schools
Qrade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
A
ELA
Li
C
A
Read
B
C
A
Math
8
C
A
ELA
B
C
A
Read
B
C
A
Main
B
C
A
ELA
B
C
A
Read
B
C
A
Mall!
B
C
STATE AVERAGE
RAW RESPIUAL5
U
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
APE AVERAGE
RESIDUALS
-16
0.1
-0.9
2.9
5.1
3.2
-1.4
-2.6
-1.0.
0.2
1.7
-4.4
-0.4
0.3
0.3
-0.5
-0.8
-3.3
1,1
2.9
0.6
0.8
1.0
a.3
1.0
14
-0.E
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL RESIDUALS
Perltorson Ejctmentsry
to.a
10.2
10.5
10.7
19.7
16.8
13.5
7.2
13.1
-10,8
.4,6
-17.0
13.1
21. t
21.4
-13.3
.9.5
-9.7
0,9
13.3
1.5
Z6.5
34,2
24.0
23.3
20.6
18.;
Usher Elementary
-22.6
-10.6
-21 .8
4,0
6.7
3.3
-12.7
-14.8
-12.5
2.0
4.9
3.7
8.5
0.5
6.5
125
13.2
13.2
13,3
22.4
13.8
22.0
30.6
22.6
20,7
46.2
27.1
Venetian
29.8
35.4
30.0
17.1
27.2
24.3
16.4
12.7
15.6
-7.7
2.7
-4.a
9.2
24.5
10.0
-13.5
0.6
-10.B
15.B
11.6
13.S
17.6
15.1
14.6
3.8
2.B
0.0
West Manor Elementary
-13.5
-1.5
-12.2
19.7
36.3
21.2
18.3
42.0
20.8
5.4
1,2
-1.5
7.7
3,1
11,2
4.4
-0,3
2.0
16.3
18.6
16.6
10.3
8,8
9.1
74.7
7«.4
6S.i
Peyton Forest
Elementary
2.5
12.4
5.5
■6.6
0.3.
-4.3
-15.5
-5,8
-11.3
29.0
30.2
26.7
16.1
27,S
16.3
59.3
64.0
B0.Z
19.3
22.0
18.5
19.6
18.7
17,4
12.8
14.B
B.9
Blakick Elementary
35.8
31 .T
35. »
22.4
19.2
20.7
40.0
30.7
38.5
24.6
18.2
24.3
12.6
12.1
10.2
9.1
5.9
6.5
+0,5
4(1.5
40.3
10.1
3.6
B.3
72.0
67.1
65.(
Benteen Elementary
-4.1
-0.5
-5.3
31.2
27.7
26.7
35.5
24,4
31.3
14.B
19,2
15,2
-11.9
-0.5
-10,2
5,7
9.3
7.9
Z6.1
50,1
23 .S
11,2
26.3
9.2
7.3
15.3
4.2
Capitol View
Elementary
23.4
23.4
23.7
33.0
28.2
31,(1
25.3
20,7
25.3
-16.7
■0.9
-16.3
-17,6
-7.8
-20.3
2.2
10.0
-1 .3
■0.5
2.7
-1 ,3
9.5
11.6
8.8
-0.3
-5.5
-3.E
Dunbar Elementary
-6.1
-14.5
-8.9
0.2
-ia2
-4.7
1.4
■1.5
-1.0
22.3
20.1
17.2
-1.4
■1D.B
0.4
37.5
39,1
38.7
-3.6
21.6
0.0
21.7
27.B
23.4
8.5
14.8
12,1
F. L. Stanton
Elementary
4.7
17.5
7.4
24.4
28.1
23.5
11. S
23.4
15.4
-1,3
O.O
3.3
-0.4
-0.3
-3.3
-9.2
-12.0
-7.7
20.1
19.1
20.6
13.6
10.7
12.7
1S.1
15.4
ie,f
Befhune'
-1.1
-5.0
-1.2
-0.3
-4.1
-1.0
-3.6
-10.2
-4.2
13.9
11.8
7.1
6.6
1.2
8.3
at
6.4
7.8
-18.0
-16.4
-17.1
-Z1.B
-18.4
-19.3
-34.0
-29.4
-31.:
Toomer Elementary *
-4.2
-0,9
-4.1
-4.1
1.9
-2.8
-29.5
-28.4
-29.7
-18.4
-4,6
-6.0
-29.3
-34.9
13.2
23.1
21.1
-S4.5
48.1)
-49J
-25.8
-22.5
-19.7
-6.2
-4.S
-4.S
Note: * indicates the residuals were negative (school performed significantly worse than predicled)
Boldedcefis are subject/grades that were identified as outliers
12
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL J 14621
761
■V
Tabie 5: Average Residuals and Standard Deviations for the Atlanta Schools
Standardized Residuals Unstandardized Residuals
Average
APS
State
Average
APS
State
APS
Residual
Residual
APS
Residual
Residual
Residual
SD
SD
Residual
SD
SD
newspaper
-0.26
1.737
■1.003
-1.61
10,341
6.193
ELA
longitudinal
0.01
1.102
1,000
0.06
11.523
10.450
schooi dem
-0.12
1.417
0.995
-0.94
11,161
7.831
newspaper
0.51
1.818
1.003
2.90
10,474
5,714
Grade 3
Read
longitudinai
0.35
1.319
1,000
3.07
11.500
8.717
school dem
0,51
1.543
0,995
3.16
9.548
6.153
newspaper
-0,14
1.492
1.004
-1.35
15.051
10.011
Math
longitudinal
-0.18
1.048
1.000
-2.62
15.585
14.866
schooi dem
-0.08
1.252
0,995
-1.01
15.141
12.034
newspaper
0.04
1.720
1.003
0.20
10.480
6.080
ELA
longitudinal
0.20
1.320
1.000
1.69
11.091
8.399
school dem
-0.45
2.783
0.995
-4,44
27.562
9.851
newspaper
1.804
1,002
' -0.40
9.794
5.388
Grade 4
Read
longitudinal
0,03
1.183
1.000
0.27
12.039
10.169
schooi dem
O.03
1.274
0.995
0.29
11.120
8.680
newspaper
-0.06
1.465
1.004
-0.51
14,308
9.741
Math
longitudinai
-0,07
1.388
1,000
-0.76
15.413
11,107
school dem
-0.26
2.243
0,995
-3.2S
23,469
12.627
newspaper
0.19
2.168
1,008
1.10
12.745
5.662
ELA
longitudinal
0.35
1.719
1.000
2.88
14.003
8.143
schooi dem
. 0.13
1.950
0.995
0.79
12.148
6.199
newspaper
0,16
2.146
1.005
0.80
10.362
4.816
Grade 5
Read
iongiludinal
0,16
1.838
1.000
1.01
11.504
6.257
school dem
0,05
1.938
0.995
0.27
9.714
4.986
newspaper
0,09
1.606
1,005
1.04
19.636
12.171
Math
longitudinal
0.13
1.706
1,000
1.40
19.001
11.132
schooi dem
-0.04
1.601
0.995
-0.47
17.791
4.986
13
(jOSA„AHS_AEF_EL_0 1 4622
762
Trie Atlanta Journal-Constitution
GEORGIA open rrcords act request
Vfe&icsday; July 19,2010
Or, Beverly Hall
Superintendent
At! ant a Pi j blic Scl ipol s
Dear Superintendent Hall,
Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. Section A§ 50-18-70 et al., The
Atlanta Jo.iUTid; Coa.st.itution is requesting to review the following- public documents with
the exception of those, portions' specifically exempted by state lawj
fiF|fe JeJiprt^omplefeH by^Andiew" Porter, dean of The Unjyeisiiy of Pennsylvania
Gf^uafischool of J^cafion, co^ming^CRCTjresvflfs
If you believe any of the requested material is exempt, please provide (he citation from
the law i,b at permits, such exemption.
As you know, the Georgia Open Records Act allows/reasonable searcfi and retrieval fees
after the first quarter hour or a maximum standard charge of 25 cents per page, or in the
case of records maintained on a computer, the actual cost of the disk or tape onto which
the information is transferred. Please notify us of the cost of retrieval and copying in
advance of filling the request.
Thank you for your assistance. I can be contacted at (404)526-71 13 or via email at
hvoRcil@aic.coin. Alan can be. contacted at 404-526 -5029 or ajudd@ajc.eoni. Please do
not hesitate to contact cither of u.s with questions.
Sincerely,
Heather Vagell
Reporter
Alan Judd
Reporter
763
Kaye, Rebecca
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pitts, Sharron
Thursday, July 22, 201 0 1 1 :08 AM
Kaye, Rebecca
RE: Open Records Request: Gates/GE reports, video, Dr. Hall honorarium records
Rebecca, I spoke with Dr. Hali and Dr. Augustine yesterday, Neither of them have the Porter report. Dr, Augustine will
have to look to see if she received any material from WestEd when she returns on Monday.
From: Yeager, Su
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:01 AM
To: Kaye, Rebecca; Pitts, Sharron
Subject: FW: Open Records Request: Gates/GE reports, video, Dr. Hall honorarium records
See below for the link to the video.
Forwarded Message
From : " Kl ng, Scott" <sckinR@atlanta.kl2,ga,us>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:46:06 -0400
To: Suzanne Yeager <syeager@atlanta.kl2.ga,us>
Subject: RE: Open Records Request: Gates/GE reports, video, Dr. Hall honorarium records
Yes, it has been archived.
http://www.apskl2.ora/medla/VIDEO PAGES/Dlff main.html
From: Yeager, Su
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 6:31 PM
To: King, Scott
Subject: Fw: Open Records Request: Gates/GE reports, video, Dr. Hall honorarium records
Importance: High
Is this video in the media gallery?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From: "Kaye, Rebecca" <rkaye@atlanta.kl2. ga.us>
To: Augustine, Kathy<kaugustine@atlanta.kl2.ga.us>: Pitts, Sharron<spitts@atlanta k 1 2. ga.us>; Yeager,
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:15:00 -0400
a
o
Su<sveagsr@atlantaJcl2,ga.us>
o
CD
o
<
764
Kaye, Rebecca
From: Kaye, Rebecca
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:55 PM
To: Vogell, Heather {CNI - AJC)'
Cc: Adaszewski, Maciej; Bromery, Keith
Subject: RE: ORA requests
Heather,
As soon as f sent this I got information from AEF that the Porter report is included in the Blue Ribbon Commission's
investigative materials, so it will not released until the report is released on August 2. Just wanted to fill you in on
why we don't have it! ©
Let me know what else I can do to assist. I'll follow up with you on WestEd on Monday.
-Rebecca
From: Kaye, Rebecca
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:39 PM
To: Vogell, Heather (CNI - AJC)'
Cc: Adaszewski, Maciej; Bromery, Keith
Subject: RE; ORA requests
Heather, ■
A copy of the Porter report does not exist in the district. The WestEd report will require additional research time. ( do
not believe we have received it either, but I need to verify with an employee who has been on leave and will return to
the office on Monday. ! will get back to you on Monday with the Information about the WestEd report.
When I hear anything about the Porter report, I will let you know.
Hope you're still feeling well with this heat!
-rdk
Rebecca D. Kaye
Director, Policy Development and Governmental Relations
Atlanta Public Schools
130 Trinity Ave., SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
404.802.2897 | 404.802,1807 (Fax)
rkave@atlantaoubiicschools.us
Link to: Approved APS poiicies and regulations
Link to; Proposed policies available for public comment m
v—
o
o
6
o
765
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
GEORGIA OPEN RECORDS ACT REQUEST
. Thursday, December 6, 2010
Dr. Beverly Hail
Superintendent
Atlanta Public Schools
Dear Superintendent Hall,
Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. Section A§ 50-18-70 et al., The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution is requesting to review the following public documents with
the exception of those portions specifically exempted by state law:
* Copies of all materials, including but not limited to documents and e-mails, provided to
the Governor's special investigators via CD.
If you believe any of the requested material is exempt, please provide the citation from
the law that permits such exemption.
As you know, the Georgia Open Records Act allows reasonable search and retrieval fees
after the first quarter hour or a maximum standard charge of 25 cents per page, or in the
. case of records maintained on a computers tire actual cost of the disk or tape onto which
the information is transferred. Please notify us of the cost of retrieval and copying in
advance of filling the request.
Thank you for your assistance. I can be contacted at (404)526-71 1 3 or via email at
hvogell@aic.com. Please do not hesitate to contact either of us with questions.
Sincerely,
Heather Vogell
Reporter
766
Kaye, Rebecca
Subject:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Kaye, Rebecca
Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:55 PM
'Vogell, Heather (CNl-AJC)'
Adaszewski, Maciej; Bromery, Keith
RE: ORA requests
Heather,
As soon as I sent this i got information from AEF that the Porter report is included in the Blue Ribbon Commission's
investigative materials, so it will not be released untl! the report is released on August 2. Just wanted to fill you in on
why we don't have iti ©
Let me know what else I can do to assist. I'll follow up with you on West Ed on Monday.
-Rebecca
From: Kaye, Rebecca
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:39 PM
To: Vogell, Heather (CNI - AJC)'
Cc: Adaszewski, Maciej; Bromery, Keith
Subject: RE: ORA requests
Heather,
A copy of the Porter report does not exist in the district. The WestEd report will require additional research time. I do
not believe we have received it either, but I need to verify with an employee who has been on leave and will return to
the office on Monday. I will get back to you on Monday with the information about the WestEd report.
When I hear anything about the Porter report, I will let you know.
Hope you're still feeling well with this heat!
Rebecca D. Kaye
Director, Policy Development and Governmental Relations
Atlanta Public Schools
130 Trinity Ave., SW
Atlanta, QA 30303
404.802.2897 | 404.802.1807 (Fax)
rltaye@atiantapublicschQols.us
Link to: Approved APS policies and regulations
Link to: Proposed policies available for public comment
-rd!<
a
O
1
O
o
o
(!)
CL
<
767
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
GEORGIA OPEN RECORDS ACT REQUEST
Thursday, December 6, 2010
Dr. Beverly Hall
Superintendent
Atlanta Public Schools
Dear Superintendent Hall,
Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. Section A§ 50-18-70 et al, The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution is requesting to review the following public documents with
the exception of those portions specifically exempted by state law:
* Copies of all materials, including but not limited to documents and e-mails, provided to
the Governor's special investigators via CD.
If you believe any of the requested material is exempt, please provide the citation from
the law that permits such exemption.
As you know, the Georgia Open Records Act allows reasonable search and retrieval fees
after the first quarter hour or a maximum standard charge of 25 cents per page, or. in the
case of records maintained on a computer, the actual cost of the disk or tape onto which
the information is transferred. Please notify us of the cost of retrieval and copying in
advance of filling the request.
Thank you for your assistance. I can be contacted at (404)526-71 13 or via email at
hvo gel 1(g), aj c. com. Please do not hesitate to contact either of us with questions.
Sincerely,
Heather Vogell
Reporter
768
Page 1 of 1
Augustine, Kathy
From: Hall, Beverly L (Supt.)
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:21 PM „" -
To: Augustine, Kathy'
Subject: Fw; Atlanta report . .
Attachments; ATLANTA.DRAFT.3.7. 10.doc
Let's discuss. .'
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T * .
From: ANDREW PORTER <andyp@gse.upenn.edu>
Date: Man, 8 Mar 2010 17:23:57 -0500
To : blhall@atlanta.kl 2.ga,us<blhall@atlanta.kl 2.ga.us>; bill@atlef.org<biH@atIe£Qrg>;
jschilIcr@nc.rr.com<jschill er@nc.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Atlanta report
Dear all,
Sorry for the delay, but attached is the next installment on our Atlanta analyses. The new stuff Is highlighted so
that you can find it easily. What you will see is we did district-level regressions of 2009 on 2008 student,
achievement statewide to get district-level residuals for 2009. You can think of these residuals as estimating the:
extent to which a district is getting better or worse from 2008 to 2009 in terms of student achievement We did
the analyses once on all. students and another time with the students deleted who were flagged as having
unusually large school residuals. The text shows how many students were deleted from Atlanta.
The purpose of these district regressions was to see if the large positive residuals influenced the results at the
district level. The answer is not much, The residuals for Atlanta grades 4 and 5 across the three tested subjects
are largely positive, with one case of a near zero residual. At the same time, these residuals are not statistically .
greater than zero. In short, there was not much change in student achievement from 2008 to 2009 whether the
unusually large positive residuals are included or excluded. Long story short,: at the district level, if the unusually
large positive residuals were due to cheating, they still didn't affect the district-level results by much..:
Andy
f -
769
DRAFT
March 7, 2010
Identifying Atlanta Elementary Schools that Had Unusually Large Gains in Student
Achievement Test Scores from the Year 2007/8 to the Year 2008/9
Andrew C. Porter
Jennifer McMaken
University of Pennsylvania
•i ' ' ■
In high stakes student achievement testing, the validity of results is especially important.
Validity can be compromised in any one of a number of ways, one of which is through
cheating. In December of 2009, the Atlantic Journal - Constitution raised the possibility
of cheating in Georgia schools by noting "improbably steep gains at some schools on
tests taken first in spring and then in summer" (June 11 , 2009). Apparently, that
prompted the governor' s Office of Student Achievement for the state of Georgia to
conduct erasure analyses that identified four schools in the state where a large number of
studentwrong answers had been erased and filled in with the correct answers ^'causing
passing rates on the state's criterion-referenced competency tests to spike" (June 11,
2009). In an October 1 8, 2009 issue of the Atlantic Journal - Constitution, reporter
Heather Vogoll, working with data analyst John Perry, reported on the results from
regression analyses using spring 2007/8 results to predict spring 2008/9 results for grades
3, 4, and 5 for each of the tests in English Language Arts, Reading, and Mathematics for
the elementary schools in Georgia. Statewide, 19 schools. were identified with,
"extraordinary gains or drops in scores between spring last year and this year. A dozen
were in Atlanta" (October 1 9, 2009). Vogell wondered whether cheating might have
occurred in these schools, which did substantially better pr worse than was predicted
from the schools' student achievement levels the spring before.
Overview of Analysis Plan .
The Atlanta Education Fund contacted the authors of this report to ask if we would do
analyses to determine the "accuracy, the validity of the AJC 's findings and identify
alternative explanations for what is found." Our analyses were to be focused on just the
2007/8 and 2008/9 years in just the grades 3, 4,and5, as analyzed by the newspaper..
We asked about analyses that extended beyond grades 3, 4, and 5, the focus of the
newspaper analyses, to include grades 3 through 8 on which there is annual testing. We
were advised to stay focused on grades: 3 , 4, and 5 . We asked the state for teacher-level
data so we could look at not only variance between schools, but also variance among
teachers within schools, but the state could not supply. We also asked for item-level
responses so we could do some erasure analyses, but again the state could not supply.
We asked for grade 2 student level, scores but did not receive them, so the 3rd grade
analyses could hot be done. At first, we thought that students were not tested in 2nd grade
as they typically are not in other states. That must not be the case, however, as the
newspaper analyses used 2nd grade.
i
770
On December 3, 2009, we agreed to imdcrtake the requested analyses. We immediately
requested the necessary data from Melissa Fincher of the Georgia Department of
Education, Data were obtained in a file suitable for analysis on January 28, 2009.
Replication of Newspaper Results
Our first analyses sought to replicate the results of the newspaper analyses. The
newspaper regressed 2008/9 schooUevel achievement means on 2007/8 school level
achievement means for each of the three grades and each of the three tests: English
Language Arts, Reading, and Mathematics. The newspaper calculated residuals for each
school in the state with grades 3, 4, and 5 where a residual is defined as the school's
actual mean level performance in comparison to its predicted mean level performance for
spring 2009 based on achievement in 2008 for the grade prior. Schools with residuals
larger than 4 standard errors of estimate were identified as outliers. Using the same ;
analysis file as used by the newspaper, we were able to replicate the newspaper results.
Two Additional Analyses to Test Validity of Newspaper Results
The newspaper results, were based on all students in each of the two years. Thus, the
results did not control for possible changes in student body composition. To control for
possible changes, we completed two analyses, First, we did analyses on longitudinal
data. The longitudinal analyses were only possible for grades four and five because we
were not provided grade 2 test scores. The. analyses are based on only the students, in a
grade at 2009 that were in the same school in 2008 and had test scores for 2008. For
example, the 5th graders in 2009 were 4th graders at the same school in 2008. As yet a
third analysis, we regressed 2009 on 2 008 data at the school level, just as did the.
newspaper, but we added as control variables 1 2 difference variables contrasting the
composition of the group of students in 2009 to the composition in 2008 . These variables
were differences in: enrollment, female, white, black, .Hispanic, Asian, American Indian,
multiracial, economically disadvantaged, disability, LEP, migrant. We call these
regression analyses, "student demographic."
As stated previously, there was some confusion about the availability or not of grade 2
test scores. In one analysis file, we had the data provided by the state that we requested,
which did not have grade 2. In another analysis file, we had the data given to us by the
newspaper, which is what they analyzed, which in retrospect, we saw had grade 2. We
had earlier thought that the newspaper analyses: had regressed grade 3 in 2009 on grade 3
in 2008. Instead, they had regressed grade 3 in 2009 on grade 2, 2008 . So, in all of our
results, the newspaper results are based on the prior, year grade as a control. We could
not replicate those grade 3 results with either of our longitudinal nor student demographic
analyses because we didn't have grade 2 in the state provided analysis file. We believe
we could get grade, 2 data: and do those analyses if that is desired. In what follows in
results, we do report on a student demographic analysis for grade 3, but it uses grade 3 in
2008 to predict grade 3 in 2009, controlling for shifts in demographics. For grades 4 and
5, the student demographic analyses use the prior grade in 2008 to: predict the subsequent
grade in 2009.
Results of all Three Analyses
771
Table 1 summarizes the results of the three regression analyses: newspaper, longitudinal,,
and student demographic. The rows in the table indicate Atlanta schools with grades: 3, 4*
and 5 that were identified as an outlier by one or more of the three analyses/ An x
indicates that the school residual was four standard errors of estimate or more above (or
below) the school's predicted level of achievement based on 2008 data (a Very high
standard for statistical significance but reasonable given the number of statistical analyses
done). The columns of the table divide the analyses by grade level and within each grade
level by test and within each test, by the three analyses, The first set of schools in the
table are for those with positive residuals and the last set of schools are for the two
schools with negative residuals.
As can be seen in Table 1, there were 22 instances of unusually large positive or negative
residuals identified by the newspaper analysis, seven at 3rd grade, four at 4th grade, and
eleven at 5th grade. Of those 22, eight, were found in both the longitudinal analysis and
the student demographic analysis. Two were found in either the longitudinal or student
demographic analyses. Thus, of the 4th and 5th grade newspaper identified large
residuals,, they often held up. in part or in whole in our additional two analyses. The 4th
and 5th grade analyses are better than the 3 rd grade analyses because they use as a control
achievement in 2008 in the prior grade.
The eight fully supported newspaper results are across seven different schools. In short,
no: one school was identified as having unusually large positive residuals across all grade
levels and tested subjects, To the contrary, the unusually large positive residuals that .
were fully supported were unique to a specific grade level and tested subject at a specific
school. Blalock was the: sole exception with two. One of the two partially supported
results was in yet a ninth school. Large residuals were not systemic. ,
Table 2 reports the multiple correlation squared for each regression equation and
identifies the significant predictors in the regression equation. All of the R2s are
substantial as one might expect when prior achievement is used to predict subsequent
achievement. There is no real pattern to these R2s, other than that in most cases, roughly
two thirds of the variance is accounted for by the predictors. Perhaps surprising, the
longitudinal analyses did not yield the highest R2s, yet the longitudinal analyses used the
same students in 2008 -to. predict their performance; in 2009. In all cases, the 2008
achievement level was a significant predictor of the achievement, level, in 2009. In the
student demographic analyses, there were as many as five significant predictors in
addition to prior achievement. Student disability and economically disadvantaged were'
the two most common significant predictors, with gender and enrollment next. The
general conclusions from these results are first, the information was a good predictor of
performance in 2009 and second, the student demographic analysis, using changes in
student body composition as. predictors, worked in the sense that .several of these
variables were significant predictors and so, helped to control for shifts in demographics.
As has been described, the longitudinal analysis was based on only the students that were
tested in the same school, both in 2009 and 2008. Table 3 gives the percentages of
students-tested 1x1,2009 that were tested, in the same school in 2008 for each of the schools
3
772
identified as haying an unusually large residual.. As seen in Table:!, statewide stability1
rate school-wide across grades 4 and 5 was 76.59% mid the Atlanta retention rate was
67.50. From grade 3 to grade 4, the analogous percentages are 74.78 and 66.28 and for
grade 4 to grade 5, the percentages are 78.42 statewide and 68.78 for Atlanta. Clearly,
year to year stability for students attending the same school is greater in the state than it is
in Atlanta. Table 3 gives the results for each individual school and the columns for grade
3 to grade 4 and grade 4 to grade 5 are most relevant to interpreting the longitudinal
analyses. In both cases, Blalock had the lowest student stability rate, only 39.34% for
grade 3 to grade 4 and 45 . 10% for grade 4 to grade 5 . One might imagine with the
relatively low stability for Blalock, newspaper results might be less likely to be
replicated, but that is not fully bome out in the results. Blalock was identified by the
newspaper as having an unusually large positive residual for grade 3 English Language
Arts and Mathematics, grade 4 English Language Arts, grade 5 English Language Arts
and Mathematics . Of those .five large positive residuals for the newspaper analysis, two.
were fully supported, and two were in 3 rd grade. No other patterns emerge from Table 3.
Size of Residuals
When interpreting the results in Table 1, a good question to ask is how large were these
unusually large, residuals? In short, while they were unusually large, in terms, of being
more than four, standard errors from what was predicted, were they also large in terms of
the scale score metric? In Georgia, scale scores are not vertically equated, making it
impossible to compare a score in one grade level to a score in another grade level Scale
scores are, however, equated from one year to the next so that comparisons over time
within grade and subject are possible, They are structured to range from 650 to 900 or
above. For grades 3, 4, and 5, 650 is the lowest possible score, for. each of the: three tests.
The highest possible score is 920 for Reading, 930 for English Language Arts, and 990
for Mathematics, indicating a greater possible range of scores for Mathematics than for
English Language Arts and for English Language Arts than for Reading, For the data in
the state-provided analysis file, standard deviations for English Language Arts and
Reading were about .11.5, regardless of grade level, with the exception of grade 5
Reading where the standard deviation was 1 0.1 . The mathematics standard deviations
were larger, ranging from 1.8,6 for grade 3 to 19 .7 for grade 4 and grade 5.
In Table 4, each of the residuals identified by one or another of the three regression
analyses that exceeded four standard errors are reported in bold. The largest residuals are
for 5th grade Mathematics, West Manor residuals, for which the newspaper finding was:
fully supported, are 74,72 for the newspaper analysis, 75.42 for the longitudinal analysis,
and 68.72 for the student demographic analysis. These results are 3-4 standard deviations
in size, which would be seen as large by any standard , For example, in education
research, when the size of the effect of an intervention is being described, it is often
described in terms of numbers of standard deviations. An intervention that has an effect
size of .5 standard deviations is seen to be a strong, intervention.
For the supported results, Table 4 indicates which analysis found tiie largest'iresi,diial4 v
The pattern was for the longitudinal analysis to yield the largest residual. For#xamples M :
RerkersoD, and Usher Elemen tary Schools 5th grade- Reading, the longitudinal analyses got
4
773
by far the largest positive residual in comparison to the other two analyses. We believe
that the best control for shifts in studeiit body composition from '08- '09 is represented in
the longitudinal analyses, yet often these were also the largest residuals.
Table 5 reports the average residuals for Atlanta public schools by grade, tested subject,
and each of the three analyses.; First, statewide, the residuals have to average to zero; that
is a statistical fact. Each regression predicts values and the average predicted values
equal the average actual values. For some schools, the prediction is lower than the
achievement level obtained; for others, it's higher. In Table 5, it is clear that the average
residuals for the Atlanta public schools do not differ much from zero, in short, across all
schools in Atlanta, they are ho more likely on average to have a large positive (or a large
negative) residual than schools elsewhere in the state. Second, while there are
differences across the three analyses, none are striking. All are less than five scale score
points. Nevertheless the standard deviations of residuals are systematically larger for
Atlanta schools than for the state, with a tendency for the greatest variance in Atlanta to.
be for the student demographic residuals. The larger variance for Atlanta than for the
state is consistent with the greater number of large positive or negative residuals for .
Atlanta.
In Table 4, we can also investigate the possibility that the unusually large positive or
negative residuals identified, each of which exceeded the four standard errors of estimate
criterion for size, might hide nearly as large positive or negative residuals that just missed
the four standard errors criterion. Not surprisingly, there are additional large positive and
negative residuals', but not as many as might be expected. For 5th grade Mathematics,
Perkerson has systematically large positive residuals that didn't meet the four standard
errors criterion. The residuals for Usher in 5th grade Mathematics are large and positive
across all three analyses despite not being flagged in the newspaper analyses. In English
Language Arts, at the 5th grade level, all three regression analyses showed fairly large
positive residuals for Benteen Elementary School, but only two of them matched the four
standard errors or more criterion.
In 4th grade for Reading, the negative residual for Toomer comes close to being fully
supported as there was a large negative residual for the longitudinal analysis as well that
again didn't meet the four standard errors criterion. For English Language Arts, the
Blalock and Peyton Forest newspaper identified schools could be considered fully
supported, as both the longitudinal and student demographic analyses estimated large
positive residuals as well. For 3^ grade English Language Arts, the Blalock large
positive residual identified by the newspaper could be considered supported by the
student demographic analysis even though the residual didn't quite meet the four standard
errors criterion.
We looked at the report "2009 CRCT Analysis by School Report" on the Governor's
Office of Student Achievement website. In that report, they list the "percent of classes
flagged in the erasure analysis.". Eight of the 12 schools flagged by the newspaper « :
analysis have 2/3 or more of their classes flagged in the erasure analysis. The '.erasure :
5
774
analysis was done on fee spring 2009 data just the same as fixe residual regression;
analyses. •
|ii order to determine the impact of lie-outliers on diBtrict-level perfblgnance", wej
compared lie 2009 residuals for airstuoents to theTesiduals when ftWstudehts m grade
levels*and tested subjects flagged^ ha^dngmiusually large positive cfuficrs were deleted
.from the sample. Because our longitudinal analyses are Jhe most convincing, w_e^
.identified large pQsitive bmfiers base&splely on longitudinal results. Since we didn't dg
longitadinal analyses for third grade^Jiause we didn't haye'secpnd grade stioresj oui^
'comparisons of the efte^qf u^Wdb^arge outliers; (^.district lewi^sulte'arejtgiited
to each of the tfcreetesfed subjects in grafe'4 and again ih grade 5 1
There were no outliers i identjfied in grade. 4 English Language Arts, nor Readings Fortjf
Ehree students were eliminated, for the reduced sample because of outliers for 4a grade[__
Mathematics. For 5th grade, 63 students from English Language Arts, 132 from Reading,
jandd'-OS'fi^mrMathematics wereehmin^tedj
psing both the full and reduced databases, 'w,e dTd district leyel regressions for the state^
predicting '09 "performance from '08 p"effbrmanbe and calculating district level residualsj
ita the case of 4* gradq.mathematics, the^ Atlanta residual .went from! .01 to -,07 after
deletion. For grade 5 English Language Arts, the Atlanta re^dual went from 3 ,00 to*"
2,51; for Reading, the residual wenfWi 2.40 10 .9,3 and in Math; from 3.03 to 0.58]
District residuals decreased no more tjiari 2.5 scale score points. In contrast, large!
(flagged positive residuals as seen in Table 4 ranged from a.low of 26.3 to a high of 75,4
'scale, score points. We conclude that even if the large positive outliers identified in thej
longitudinal 'analyses' were due to cheating., and Ve'rc riot saying that they wercjj
jelimrnatmg tbosedata from the sample had only a minimal effect upon djstrictleyel
iperformanccJ
|flle- residuals 'reported foodie district can.be tiiou^lit of as an estimate of bow muchbeUer
(or wo|sb) Atlanta' s perfbrnimibe in 2009 was .from' what was prMtcted':from 2O0i|
perforniance. If Atlanta were getting better oyer tihie, these residuals would be positive;
if Atlanta were getting worse over time; these residuals- would be getting.negatiye. .A!
Iddk at Tahle 4 indicates tiiat a large niaj\in laialyscs!
for Atlanta calculated at the school level are positive. The district level residuals aiej_
largely positiv^ Whether or riot"
loutlipfs are deleted, district level performance in 2009 was slightly but not sigmficantly
better tW from 2008; r " ■
Summary
Over the course of the last several months, several analyses. have been conducted of ,
student achievement in Georgia public schools with an eye toward identifying possible
instances of cheating. One set of those analyses focused on changes between reMten
2007/8 and 2008/9 for grades 3, 4, and 5 on each of the tested subjects, English Language'
Arte, Reading, and Mathematics. "The analyses reported; by Heather Vogell in the
Atlantic Journal Constitution used a prior grade. in 2008 to predict the following grades
6
775
in 2009 for all of the students in the school in those two years and those grade, levels for
each of the schools in the state, The newspaper analysis identified. 12 schools in Atlanta
for which there were unusually large residuals,
The analyses reported here investigated the validity of the newspaper results. The
analyses explored the validity of those newspaper results by conducting analyses based
just on students who stayed in the same school for testing in 2008 and then again testing
in 2009 at the next grade level. These are called the longitudinal results. We also added
shifts in student demographics as control variables to the newspaper analyses and these
were called the student demographic analyses. Both the longitudinal analyses and the
student demographic analyses were meant to provide controls not provided in the
newspaper analyses for shifts from one year to the next in student demographics that
might have accounted for the unusually large positive and occasionally negative residuals
;the newspaper identified and that might be an.indicator of possible cheating. Newspaper
.findings not found also in the two additional analyses would be suspect, having not had .
adequate controls.
First, the size of the positive and occasional negative residuals were often large, as many
as 3 or 4 standard deviations in size. Second, many of the newspaper results were,
supported with both the longitudinal and student demographic analyses. Not all
newspaper results were supported and as might be expected, the additional analyses
identified additional subjects and grade levels in the already identified schools that might
also be outliers having unusually large or occasionally unusually large negative residuals.
No additional Atlanta schools in the newspaper dataset were identified by these two
additional analyses.
jlo: determineithe effect of identified unusually large positive outliers .on d^ste
pcrforhiance, we did district level regresRions and calculated district level residuals foi]
.each of the- tested subjects in grad es 4 and 5.: Longitudinal analys es. vv ere. not possible m
grade 3 as . was noted previously. The impact on district level residuals of deleting1
.outliers- was mminial/indi eating that, overall district level performance in Atlanta;
iuiproved sligh.Uy .fi'om 2008 to 2009 with or without outliers. Our two adjacent year
janalyses do; not address the question of the size an d di rection of distri ct change in,
Achievement over a longer period of yearsj
We weren't given the more recent erasure analyses published by the governor's office of
student achievement at the grade and tested subject level, only at the school level. Eight
of the 12 newspaper flagged schools had 2/3 or more of their classes flagged in the
erasure analysis. .:
In summary, controlling for shifts in student demographics from 2008 to 2009 through
the longitudinal analyses and the student demographic: analyses did not in large part:
negate the newspaper findings. Schools with unusually large residuals indicating that the
school did, much better or much worse than would have been expected based op prior .
achievement found , in one analysis tended to be found in the other analyses, as., well as -is
the erasure .analyses.' '
776
These results do not; prove that cheating occurred, but they do point to student
achievement gains and losses that are highly unusual and for which cheating could be one
explanation. Nevertheless, unusually large residuals were, not systemic across grade
levels and tested subjects in a school, suggesting that the unusually large: residuals are
localized to specific grades and subjects for at least 10 of the 12 schools. Further, the
average residuals for Atlanta schools were comparable to the average residuals for
schools statewide. To the extent that there were unusually large positive residuals, these
were offset by unusually large negative residuals in Atlanta schools,, The standard
deviations, of residuals were, however, larger for Atlanta schools than for schools
statewide; In short, there were more large positive and negative residuals for Atlanta
schools than was typical for schools in the rest of the state. Finally, it is also true that if a
school cheated in 2008 to get better student achievement performance and then cheated
again in 2009 in the same way, neither the newspaper analysis, nor our longitudinal and
student demographic analyses would flag this school as an outlier with an unusually large
residual.
777
00
Grade 3
Mat
■VIOL
ELA
y
h
'wv.- .vk.1 I ion t \ :
ID
I us
: A
/ \
R P
A
M
£5
: A
b
-v*:t lit j-jitaty
a
n/a
X
n/a
u!
Vi^j icj Lit,i ntsi iidf y.
find
:UU4
a
a
n/3:
n/a
,256
■ V
\j
v
A
V
A
n/a
n/a
West Manor
1256
rv
* — id i i ci | t,c3l y
Q
a
n/a
X
n/a
Peyton Forest
306
n/
Ftf'ftipnfarv
a
n/a
n/a
405
III
505
X
CI
IV
n/a
! X .
. ■
n/a
Berrteen Elementary
i
a
X
n/a
n/a
Capitol View ... v
505
A'
g
V
n/a
n/a
Dunbar Elpmpntarv
F. L. Stanton
555
«
a
n/a
n/a
556
n/
Ml
El^mRntarv
i—r't. ri licit y
u
: y
■ A
...
n/a
■
n/a
105
n/ ■
Bethune*
2
556
a
rtf .
n/a
n/a
Topifier. Eienrentary*
r
a
n/a
X
n/a
NOTE: * indicates the
I residuals were negative
(school performed
significantly worse than
■j predicted)
Table 1: Regression Analyses
Grade 4
ELA
ABC
Readln
g
ABC
Mat
h
ABC
Grades
ELA
A B C
X *X X
X X
XX X
Read in
Mat
g
h
A
B
C
A
B
X
X
x '-
X
X
X
X
Note: Column A =
Newspaper;Co!umn B =
Longitudinal; Column C =
Student Defns
X X X
X
X ...
9
APS-KAUGUST 00026
Table 2: Significant Predictors
r 7: -
F
|
i "
t
Subject
Analysis
R2
Significant Predictors
ELA
newspaper .
longitudinal
school derrf
0,72
n/a
0.57
eta 03
ela 08
econ. disadvantaged
disability
Read
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.76
n/a
0.78
read 08
rsao. uo
TtsiTiaie
econ. oisauvantag[BQ
disability
\ "".
\ -
1 .*
i
Matli
newspaper
longitudinal ,
school dem
0.71
n/a
0.67
math
08
math
08
enrollment t
econ.disadvantaged
disability
1 "■■
Grfide
i
■' ELA
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.72
' 0.56
0.56
i ela 08
cla 08
: ela 08
female ..
multiracial
econ. disadvantaged ■ j
disability
LEp
read
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.76
OSO
0.64
? read 08
read 08
read 08
female
hispariic
multiracial
. math
npwsOaOer
longitudinal
school dem
0.69
0,64
0;64
matn
08
math
08
' math
08
multiracial
vSnade
ELA
newspaper.,
longitudinal
school dem
0.73
0.58
0.72
: ela 08
ela 08
ela 08
enrollment .
econ. d isadva ntaged
disability
read
newspaper
longitudinal
school dem
0.77
0.59
0.73
read 08
read 08
read 08
econ.disadvan.taged
disability
: ■ math
newspaper
I longitudinal
j school dem
0.62
0.66
0.64
math
08 "
math
08
math
08
enrollment
econ. disadvantaged
disability
i
APS-KAUGUST 00027
_ ■ ■■■ ■■ ■■' '" ■
. Table 3: Percentof students tested in 2009 that were tested in the same school in 2008
School Name
ID
l*i j^. f
scnQOi-
ttndc* % flfi
VVjUC /□ uu
to 09
overlap
Gr3 OR to
Gr4 09 % 1
overlap
Rr4 nS tn
Gr5 09 %
overlap
STATE RETENTION RATE
76,59
74.78
78.42
APS AVERAGE RETENTION RATE
67.50 :
66.28
68.78
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL RETENTION
Perkerson Elementary School
296
60.34
64.44
57.75
. Usher Elementary School..
604^
... 72.31
66.13
77.94
Venetian
2568
61.76
61.82
61 .70
.West Manor Elementary School
2569
75.53 .
73.68
78.38
Peyton Forest Elementary School
3065
65.57
63.64'
67.86
Blalock Elementary School
4052
41.96
39.34
45.10 J
Benteen Elementary School
5051
63.37
69.49
. 54.76 .
Capitol View Elementary School
.5054
71.79
67.86
74.00
Dunbar Elementary School .
5558
51.56
51.35
51.85 ■ .
F. L. Stanton Elementary School
5566
67.86
66.13
7o.oo :
. Bethune*
1052
70.42
70.42
70.42
Toomer Elementary School*
5567.
56.60
5t:85
61.54
00
o
APS-KAJGUST 00028:
i
i
Table 4:'Residuafe.far the 12 Newsjjaperldentifiecl. Schools
i
i
Grade 3
. . Grade 4
Grade 5
' !
Read
Math
EI.A . .
Read
. Math ... .
Read
Math
ID
A
B
C
A
B
'G
A
B.
C
A
. B
C
A
B
C
A ...
8
C :
A ...
B
C ^
A
B
C
A
B ...
C
.STATE
AVERAGE RAW
KESDKJALS
CO
0.0
■0.0,
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 .
O.0
0.0
0,0
Q.O
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
, 0.0
0.0
■ f
0.0
0:0
0,0
0.0
AVF.RAGE
"RESiaUALS
-1.6
2.9
0.1
: -1.4
-3:3
0.2
1.7
-4.4
-0.4
0.3
0.3
-0.5
-0.8
-3.3
: 1.1
2.9
0.6
Q'6
1.0
0.3 ;
1,0
1.4
-0,5
RESIDUALS
PeiKe'rsoin
:S96
10.8
-
■11.7.
19.7
25.0
' 13.5!
■-
19.3
10.8:
-4.6
17.0 '
13.1
21.1
21.4
13;3
■3:5
4 J
' 0.9
13.3
1.5
26,5
34.2
24.0
23:3
20.6
16.2
0U4
22.8
-
16.1
4.0
-
; 12.7
12.1
2.0
4.9
3.7'
6.5
'9.5.
6.5
12.8
13.2
13:2
13.3
22.4
•13:8
22.0
30.5
22.5
2917
45.2
27,1
Venetian
2568
29.9
7.6
27.1
17,5
'16,4
~
-6.1
-7.7
2T ■
-4:8
9.2
24.5
10.0
13.5
0.6
10.9
1.5.8
11.6
13.5
17.5
15.1
14.6
3.8
2.5
0,0
Wes:
Marit-f
2569
13.5'
_
19.7
37.1
18.3
48.4
5.4
1.2
-1.5 ;
7.7
' 3.1
1,1.2
4.4
-0.3
2.8
16.3
1 8.6
18.6
1Q^3:
. 8.8
9.1
74.7
75.4
68.7
Peytqp;
Foraet
3065
2,8
18.0
-5.6
1.6
'.1.5.5
88
29.0
30.2
28.7
16.1
' 27.9
16.3
59.3
64.0
60.2
19.3
22.0
1&5
19.6
18.7
17.4
12.6
14.6
8.9
Blalocj?
4052
35.8
27.5
'22.4
-
11.9
40.0
-
21.3
24.5
19:2
24.3
12.8
12.1
10i2
9.1
S..9
8.5
40.5
40.S
40.3
10.1
3-6
8.3
72.0
67.1
65.0
Banteeri
5051
-4.1
-1.2
4.5
.35.5
31.3;
14,8
19.2
15.2
11.9
-0.5
10.2
5.7
9.3
7:9
'25.1
50.1
23.9
11.2
26:3
9.2
. 7,3
15.3
4.2
Cspi'tOi
View
5054
23.4
-
-7.5
33.0
_
-3.5
25.3
-
6.1
15.7
-0.6
16.3
17.8
-7.9
20.3
2.2
10.0
-1.3
-3.5
2.7
-1.3
,9.5
11.8
;S.S
-0.3
-5-5
-3.8
Dunbgr-
5558
-8,1
1.3,
; 0.2
-0.9
14
11.8
22.3
20.1
17,2
-1.4
10.9
0.4
37.5:
39.1
38.7
-3.6
21.6
0.0
21.7
27.8
23.4
9.5
14.8
12,1
F. Li
Sta.nton '
5566
4.7
5.2
24 A
13.0
11.5
9.3
\ -1.3
■
3.3
-0.4
-0.3
-3.3
-9,2
12-0
-7:7
20.1
19.1
20.6
13.6
10.7
1.2:7
1.9-1!
15.4
16:6
1052
-1.1
-6.4 :
; -0.3
-2.0
-3.6
13.7
' 13.9
118
7.1
6.6
1.2
:8.3
;9.1
6.4
7.8
18.0
16.4
'17.1
21.8
18.4
19,3
34.0
29.4
31.2
Tanmer
5S67
■4.2
-9.4
:.-4.1
24.7
29.5
28.1
16.4
. -4.6.
-6.0
33,9
29.3
34.9
13.2
. 23,1
21.1
54.5
46.0
49.5
2S.8
22:5.
19.7
-6.2,
.' -4.5
-4.9
NQJE:' * indicates the residuals were
negative: (school performed significantly
Note: ~ indicates entries of.n/a
Bolded cells are subject/grades
that were identified as outliers
12
APS-KAUGUST 00029
1 Table 5: Average Residuals and Standard Deviations for the Atlanta Schools
i
2'
Standardized Residuals
Unstandardized Residuals
1
Average
APS
Residual
APS
Residual
SD
State
Residual
SD
Average
APS
Residual
APS
Residual
SD
State
Residual
... SD
-0.26
1.737
1.003
-1.61
10.841
. 6.193
luntjiiuuii Idl
n/a:
n/a
} ,
ELA
-0.54 ;
1.177
0.995
-4.60
10.060
8.501
0.51
1.818
1.003
2,90
10.474
5.714
longitudinal
n/a
n/a
Read
Owl lVfV/1 Uvl II
0.02
1.820
0.995
0.10
9.406
5.142
-0.14
1.492
1.004
-1.35
15.051
10.011
InrirtitiiHinal
n/a
n/a
'. Grade 3
Math
school dern
-0.29
1.326
0.995
-3.26
14.921
11.200
1 lUlTOPQUwl . ,
0.04
1.720
1.003
0.20
10.480
,' 6.080
longitudinal
0.20
1,320
1.000
1.69
11.091
8.399
ELA
school dem ■
. -0.45
2.783
0.995
-4.44
, 27.592
9.851 ;
nfii h'K n a ft p r
-0.08
1.804
1.002
-0.40
9.794
5.388
lonisltiiriin^l
iwt iy£ i luui I iqi
0.03
1 .183
1 .000
0.27
12,039
10.169
read
school dem
0.03
1.274
0.995
o;29
11.120
8.680
-0.06
1.465
1.004
-0.51
14.308
9.741
lUn^HUUHlcll
-0.07
1.388
1.000
-0.76
15.419
11.107
math
crhnnl rlom
OvI lUUi UCI 1 1
-0.26
2.243
0.995
-3.26
28.469
12.627
0.19
2.168
1,008
.1.10
12.745
5.862
longitudinal
0.35
1.719
1,000
2.88
14.003
8.143
ELA
school dem
0.13
1.950
0.995
0.79
12.148
6.199
newspaper
■ 0.16
2.146
1.005
0.80
10.362
4.816
; ' .'i
longitudinal
0.16
1.S38
1,000
1,01
11.504
6.257
read
. school dorn
0.05
1.938
0.995
0.27
9.714
4.986
. newspaper
0.09
1.608
1.006
1.04
19.636
'. 12.171
longitudinal
0.13
1.706
1.000
. .1,40
19.001
11.132
, Grads 5
math
school dem
-0.04
1.6Q1
0,995
1 -0.47
17.791
4.986
APS-KAUGUST 00030
JONES DAY
\AZO PEACHTREE STREET, H.E, ■ SUITE BOO • ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3O309. 3053
TELEPHONE: 404.S8 1.3939 • FACSIMILE: 404.38 1 .8330
Direct Number: (404)581-8502
rhdeane@J onesDay.com
JP003004 June 8, 2011
225169-600001
Michael J. Bowers, Esq.
Richard L. Hyde
Balch & Bingham LLP
30 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd., Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30308
Robert E. Wilson, Esq.
Wilson, Morton & Downs, LLC
125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 420
Decatur, GA 30030
Re: Interview of Dr. Beverly L. Hall
Dear Mike, Bob and Richard:
During your interview of Dr. Hall on May 1 8, 201 1, you asked about several matters
which we indicated we would look into further and get back to you on Dr. Mall's behalf, The
first of those matters relates to your questions to Dr. Hall inquiring whether APS staff lawyers
had done work for her personally or for family members. In responding to the question,. Dr. Hall
answered generally 4ino," but she then discussed 'an episode which you acknowledged
recognizing, involving Mr. Felipe L Farley.
As we understand the matter, at some point. Dr. Hall asked APS General Counsel, Ms.
Veleter Mazyck, whether a staff lawyer might answer a question that Dr. Hall was relaying on
behalf of her husband. The details of this request are now sketchy, but Ms. Mazyck considered
the matter de minimis and told Dr. Hall that she had no objection to the request. Dr. Hall
followed up by asking, whatever the question was, of Mr. Farley. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Farley
gave Dr. Hall several pages which appeared to have been copied from some source, in response
to Dr. Hall's question. Our understanding is that the matter ended there and that nothing more
was asked of Mr. Farley. We believe these events occurred sometime in early 2007, prior to Mr.
Farley's termination from APS.
On July 7, 2009, more than two years after this innocuous request, Mr. far-ley sent
Dr. Hall a document which he characterized as an "Invoice for personal legal work.'* In
subsequent emails and correspondence from Ms. Mazyck and other outside counsel to Mr.
Farley, even as late as December, 2010, Mr. Farley was asked to provide the basis for his invoice
and to explain the nature of his representation warranting a $2,800.00 fee request. Mr. Farley
AT1-2475M8V3
ATLANTA • BETJING • BRUSSELS ■ CHICAGO • CLEVELAND • COLUMBUS . DALLAS • OUBAI . FRANKFURT ■ HONGKONG - HOUSTON
IRVINE • LONDON . LOS ANGELES • MADRID • MKXSCO C1TV • MILAN • MOSCOW • MUNICH - NEW DELHI ■ NEW 1DBK • PARIS
PITTSBURGH * SAN DI£<SO * SfAN pffiAWClSCO » SHANGHAI * SILICON VALLEY ' SIN^APORK • SYDNEY * TAIP£l t TOKYO » WASHINGTON
783
JONES DAY
Michael j. Bowers, Esq.
Richard L. Hyde
Robert E. Wilson, Esq.
June 8, 2011
Page 2
was reminded of a lawyer's obligation under Rule 1.4'of the Georgia Rules of Professional
Responsibility, providing, int&j alia, "A lawyer shall ... promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information." Additionally, Rule 1.5(b) was pointed out to him. That rule, provides
that "[w]hen the lawyer has not regularly represented the Client, the basis of the fee shall be
communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after
commencing the representation.1' Despite repeated requests, Mr. Farley has never provided any
such information to support his request for payment.
You also questioned Dr. Hall regarding an investigation focusing on Parks Middle School
involving, among others, allegations that school personnel had received specific test information
in advance of the 8t!l Grade Writing Test administered on January 18-19, 2006. You questioned
Dr. Hall about an investigative note entry on an invoice indicating that the investigator met with
Dr. Hall in May, 2006. Dr. Hall advised you that she has no recollection of any such meeting.
We now also have conferred with Milicent Few and with Demaris Perryman Garrett, who also
purportedly attended such a meeting. Neither of them had any recollection of such a meeting.
As for the underlying allegations from the 2006 investigation, we would note that the report
focused on more than allegations of cheating and was largely inconclusive in its findings on the
various issues it attempted to address. We understand that testing materials for the 2006 Writing
Test were not sent to the school until January 6, 2006. and thus would not have been available to
anyone at Parks before that time, certainly not in December of 2005 as alleged. As for testing
prompts and practice questions, we understand that such materials are generally available and are
not, in themselves, an indication of cheating. Beyond this information, and given that you have
advised us not to attempt to question the investigator himself, we have nothing else to offer
regarding your questions about the Parks investigation and leave conclusions about that report
and investigation to your assessment.
We also feel we should address some of your questions concerning the Porter Report.
As you know, that report was commissioned by the Atlanta Education Fund (the "AEF") to assist
APS in its consideration of allegations raised in articles published by the Atlanta Journal -
Constitution (the "AJC") on October 17 and 1 9, 2009. In those articles, the newspaper used
statistical linear regression techniques to compare average students' third, fourth and fifth grade
scores in 2009 to the averages for the previous grades in 2008, ignoring changes in students,
teachers, curriculum, etc. This analysis confirmed that the 2008 scores validly predicted some
80 percent of the expected scores in the next highest grades in 2009. Yet, according to the
articles, some average scores improved astronomically from year to year; others deteriorated
sharply.
AT!-2475148vJ
784
JONES DAY
Michael J. Bowers, Esq,
Richard L. Hyde
Robert E. Wilson, Esq.
June 8, 2011
Page 3
The newspaper cited a dozen elementary schools in Atlanta with "extraordinary gains or
drops in scores" between spring 2008 and spring 2009. However, even as to those schools, the
authors of the articles acknowledged that their analysis was not conclusive, conceding that:
There are limits to this analysis. Data publicly available from the
state do not" permit tracking students' individual scores from year
to year. And because we were able to look at average scores only,
student mobility could create score variations not accounted for by
the formula derived from the regression. This is especially true for
schools and grades with smaller enrollments.
All in all, the AJC raised questions without providing answers.
Dr. Andrew Porter was asked by the AEF to review the validity of the newspaper's
methodology. Dr. Porter affirmed that scores at a limited number of schools were statistically
improbable but neither confirmed nor refuted cheating, instead, he merely said it was
appropriate to ask whether cheating had occurred.
By controlling for changes in student body composition and variations due to
demographic factors, Dr. Porter determined that more than one-third of the statistical
irregularities the AJC had cited were less dramatic than the newspaper had suggested. Moreover,
no patterns of unusually large residuals emerged from his analysis:
[N]o one school was identified as having unusually large positive
residuals across all grades and subjects tested. To the contrary, the
unusually large positive residuals that were fully supported were
unique to a specific grade level and tested subject at a specific
school . . . Large residuals were not systemic."
(Id. at 3). He cautioned that:
These results do not prove that cheating occurred, but they do point
to student achievement gains and losses that are highly unusual and
for which cheating could be one explanation.
Based on your questions, you seem to have the mistaken impression that Dr. Hail
somehow caused the Porter Report to "disappear." She most definitely did not. As she has
explained repeatedly, she received a copy of the completed report as an attachment to a "Gmai3"',
message from Dr. Porter after he already had sent it to officials at the AEF. Once Dr. Hall
confirmed with the AEF that the report was being given due consideration, and once she
ATS-24?S!4Hv3
785
JONES DAY
Michael J. Bowers, Esq.
Richard L, Hyde
Robert E. Wilson, Esq.
June 8,2011
Page 4
understood that the AEF intended to provide the report to the BRC and Caveoif s Dr. Fremer to
address as the BRC and Cavepn deemed fit, she deleted the message and its attachment from her
Gmail inbox, as is her practice, and Google ultimately discarded it per Google's standard
retention policy. The report has never disappeared. The original, completed report has been held
at all times by the AEF, the entity that commissioned it.
When the AJC's Heather Vogel asked for the report on July 22, 201 0, she initially was
told by email that a copy of the report did not exist within the district. However, a mere 1 6
minutes after the initial APS email was sent, a follow-up email advised Ms. Vogel that the AEF
had the report and that it related to the BRC investigation which was still under way. Ms. Vogel
promptly acknowledged receipt of that email but evidently made no effort to pursue a copy from
the AEF. Instead, she apparently obtained a copy from another source in the fall and at that time
wrongly suggested that APS had hidden it from her.
Any suggestion that APS deflected the AJC's request for the Porter Report in order to
cover up his conclusions is entirely unfounded. First, there was no reason to "cover up" its
conclusions, which were merely preliminary and by no means pointed to widespread
irregularities. But more importantly, by the time Dr. Porter completed his report in May, 2009,
circumstances had changed dramatically. GOSA had issued its erasure analysis, questioning not
12 APS schools as had the AJC, but a full 58; APS had publicly acknowledged the need for
further investigation, and the BRC's inquiry mandated by GOSA had been under way for more
than 3 months. In short, as of May. 2009, Dr. Porter's findings were old news at best and were
now subsumed in the larger review being conducted by the BRC.
Far from covering up the alleged improprieties his report recognized as possible, APS
effectively highlighted and expanded upon what Dr. Porter's statistics may have indicated
through its publication of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report and the Caveon Test Security
analysis. Dr. Porter found that CRCT scores at 12 APS schools reflected "unusually high
residuals, indicative of statistical improbability. The Caveon erasure analysis incorporated in the
Blue Ribbon Commission Report cited facts about those same schools that were more detailed
and raised far more issues than did Dr. Porter's findings, which were essentially subsumed
within Caveon's conclusions.
The Caveon findings reported by the BRC were based, as GOSA required, on the
statistical analysis CTB McGraw Hill had performed for GOSA earlier in 2010. Assuming that
the CTB McGraw-Hill analysis is valid (which is by no means clear), and assuming that a high
number of erasures implies cheating, the BRC Report inevitably gave a far greater indication of
probable impropriety than Dr. Porter's linear regressions had revealed. That indication was
strengthened by the BRC's recommendation that 109 education professionals should be
ATI-2475MSv3
786
JONES DAY
Michael J. Bowers, Esq.
Richard L. Hyde
Robert E. Wilson, Esq.
June 8,2011
Page 5
investigated farther. Unlike Dr. Porter, the BRC did not declare that cheating was only "one
explanation" for the oddities indicated by GOSA's erasure analysis. In short, Dr. Porter's
preliminary statistical review pales in comparison to the BRC report.
Dr. Hall has consistently explained what she did with the Porter report. While you
question how she handled the report, the simple truth is it never "disappeared," but remained
with the AEF and was subsumed within the more expansive BRC report. APS later withheld the
report from the AJC based on the exemption for matters under investigation - which clearly it
was. At the time, the AJC did. not contest that exemption and did not pursue obtaining the report
from the BRC. We hope you will agree, in the face of these facts, that there is no legitimate
basis upon which to conclude that Dr. Halt acted improperly with respect to the Porter report,
much less that she tried to suppress it.
Enclosure
ec: Dr. Beverly L. Hall
ATI-2475I48y3
787
PORTER REPORT
788
PORTER REPORT SUBSUMED WITHIN CAVEON FINDINGS
Caveon assigned eight of the twelve schools highlighted by the AJC and Dr. Porter to its
"High Erasure" category, defined in the BRC Report as "more erasures than 2x the median;
ELA - 7, Reading - 7, Mathematics - 9." (BRC Report, App. 4 at 7), Scores of these schools
were said to have been highly improbable. The BRC flatly stated that, "These schools have a
minimum of 1 in 1 ,000,000,000,000 chance of their results occurring randomly." (BRC Report
at 15; emphasis added)
The four schools of the AJC/Porter twelve not assigned to the "High Erasure" group -
Benteen Elementary, West Manor Elementary, Toomer Elementary, and Bethune Elementary -
by no means were exonerated. Caveon ranked Benteen with four other schools "flagged with
anomalous data for specific grade-subject groups." (BRC Report, App. 4 at 13) This was
consistent with the findings of both the AJC and Dr. Porter, both of whom had noted
extraordinary gains only in Benteen' s Grade 3 Reading and Grade 5 English/Language Arts
("ELA"). Caveon expanded upon that by observing that those Grades experienced a 100% pass
rate coupled with a high rate of answer sheets with seven or more erasures, an unexpected
number of which were wrong-to-right. (Id.) In keeping with Porter's analysis, Caveon grouped
West Manor with five other schools "where test scores increased in at least one grade-subject
combination through erasures on the answer sheets." (BRC Report, App. 4 at 1 4) The BRC
Report declared that a full 1 7% of Grade 3 Math answer sheets at West Manor exhibited higher
than expected wrong-to-right erasures, with erasures contributing to an estimated thirty-two
score increases, as against seven decreases. (Id.)
As for Toomer Elementary and Bethune Elementary, AJC had claimed only an
extraordinarily improbable decrease, not an increase, in that school's scores. Although Dr.
AT!-2475766v2
789
Porter was able to confirm that claim for oniy two of three subjects at Toomer, Caveon classed
Toomer among schools "with identifiable patterns of statistical flags relating to teachers within
the grade or across subject areas within the school that could indicated the presence of an
irregularity" and "observed high erasures with score increases in Reading." (BRC Report, App.
4 at 17) And while Caveon prioritized Bethune Elementary among the least problematic of the
fifty-eight schools listed in the GOSA erasure report, that listing is consistent with Dr. Porter's
analysis, which did not support the AJC's conclusion that scores at Bethune were more than four
standard deviations lower than expected.
Statements made in the BRC Report about the eight "High Erasure" schools added details
not found in the Porter Report - details that clearly implied that cheating was more than merely
"one explanation" for what occurred. For example, Blalock Elementary was described as having
high erasures "overall," with thirty-five of thirty-six answer sheets in one Grade 3 classroom in
that category (an occurrence said to have less than a one in one quadrillion probability of being
random), and with 46 of 48 "high erasure" answer sheets in a Grade 5 classroom (the chance of
which was said to be only one in one quintiiiion), (BRC Report, App. 4 at 1 1) Capital View
Elementary was said to have "'high erasures" overall with greater than 90% pass rates in Grades 1,
3, 4, and 5 and with nine of sixteen teachers "flagged" for high erasures in more than one subject.
(Id.) Grade 5 at Capital View was found to have 31% of its answer sheets with higher than
expected wrong-to-right erasures, as compared with 9% expected, with thirty-five scores
increasing due to erasures and 9 decreasing. (Id.)
At Dunbar Elementary, answer sheets also exhibited "high erasures" overall. (BRC
Report, App. 4 at 12) There, thirty-three of thirty-six answer sheets in one Grade 5 teacher's
class showed high erasures (the odds of which were stated as one in one trillion); and Caveon
ATI-2475766v2
790
singled out one Grade 3 teacher for high wrong-to-right erasures in Math. (Id.) High overall
erasures were reported for F. L. Stanton Elementary as well, where passing rates were passing
rates 90% for ELA, 91% for Reading, and 84% for Math. (Id.) At F. L. Stanton, one Grade 3
Math teacher had fifteen answer sheets with score increases; every teacher was flagged for at
least one subject in Grades 4 and 5; and, for Grade 5 math, 24% of the answer sheets reflected
higher than expected wrong-to-right erasures, with thirty-three scores increasing and fifteen
decreasing. (Id.)
Answer sheets at Perkerson Elementary were found to have high erasures coupled with
high pass rates in Reading and Math and higher than expected wrong-to-right erasures in ELA
across the board. (BRC Report, App. 4 at 7) For Reading, "[s]core increases appeared to be
present in all grades with the greatest increase in Grade 4." (Id.) Moreover, 29% of Grade 5
answer sheets exhibited higher than expected wrong-to-right erasures, and forty-three scores
increased due to erasures, as compared with only fourteen decreases. (Id.)
At Peyton Forest Elementary, Caveon found "high erasures" overall and overall passing
rates in al! three subjects from 93% to 97%. (BRC Report, App. 4 at 10) One Grade 5 teacher at
Peyton Forest was flagged for high erasures in all subject areas, with thirty-nine of forty-five
answer sheets with high erasures, (Id.) Caveon declared that, "The probability that the answer
sheets for this teacher were representative of the population of answer sheets is less than one in
10 trillion." (Id.) In Grade 2 at Peyton Forest, erasure-based score increases outpaced decreases
by two to one. (Id.)
Usher Elementary also was found to have high overall erasures in all subjects coupled
with high overall passing rates as well as wrong-to- right erasures higher than expected, (BRC
Report, App. 4 at 7-8) In all three subjects, there were substantially more scores that increased
ATI-2475766v2
791
due to erasures than scores that decreased. Observing that Grade 5 pass rates for ELA, Reading,
and Math were 97%, 96% and 92%, respectively, Caveon noted that three of the school's four
Grade 5 teachers were flagged for high erasures in all three CRCT subject areas. It also reported
that erasures in one Grade 3 teacher's classroom increased sixteen Math scores but decreased
only three. (Id.)
Answer sheets at Venetian Hill Elementary, the last of the AJC/Porter schools assigned to
Caveon' s "High Erasure" category, were said to have shown "high erasures" overall, with
overall pass rates of 85% or better in all three subjects. (BRC Report, App. 4 at 8) High
erasures were found in every subject in every grade and classroom tested at Venetian Hills, with
the exception of ELA and Reading in Grades 2 and 3, (Id.)
ATI-247S766v2
792
Elementary School Comparison for 2008 to 2009 CRCT
GO
RED is equal to a decline in performance on CRCT,
! Dark Green is equal to improved performance (4% or higher) on CRCT.
Bright Green is equal to slight improved performance (l%-3%) on CRCT.
Orange is equal to constant performance (0%) on CRCT.
Black Font = 25% or more of the classes within the grade-level are flagged.
Sot
ft of % of sections
Classes Classes with a
Flagged Flogged mean of 10
_WTR or more
UM o
1SJ% 0
SchoolName
KIMBERLY ELEM
BOLTON ACADEM
GROVE PARK EL
HERN DON ELEME
WILLIAMS ELEM
PARKSIDE ELEM
TOOMER ELEMEN
MILES ELEMENT
BETH LINE ELEME
MAJONCSCLE
CLEVELAND ELE
ADAMSV1I1E EL
HERrTAGE ACAD
CASCADE ELEME
CW HILL ELEM
SLATER ELEMEN
DOBBS ELEMENT
THOMASVILLE H
FAIN ELEMENTA
COOK ELEMENTA
EAST LAKE ELE
BEECHER HILLS
BENTEEN ELEME
HUMPHRIES ELE
HUTCHINSON EL
WHITE ELEMENT
DEERWOOD ACAD
SRT
1
4
4
1
4
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
Classes
60
59
75
54
54
75
42
60
78
78
69
72
78
66
51
99
90
87
78
54
50
54
51
■15
66
57
90
_WTR
7
11
15
11
11
16
9
13
J!
is
18
20
22
19
15
30
30
34
31
22
71
23
22
21
31
27
43
20.0%
20.4K
20.454
21.37.
21.454
21.7K
23.1%
23.1%
2G.1%
27.3%
28.2%
28.8%
23.4%
30.3%
33.3%
39.1%
39.7%
40.7%
42.0%
42.6%
43.1%
46.7%
47.0%
47.4%
-1
1
12
17
IB
6
3
21
j i ;i H
-IB
-a
40
33
46
* .1.
8
5
,"■
-J.
0
-S
> '!>,
L _
.1
A
-7
-11
-ii
2
"
■■■■
3 J
-4
-J.S
-9
•13
-1
7
9
6
■S
-4
5
9
-1
•a :
4
-s
6
"-5"
-9
. ~l
-3
3
2
10
2
-2
7
' -1 _
-10
8
12
4
—
. 6
9
9
17
19
2
6
. .%
-S9
-19
4
14
-an
-8
10
-4
-12
-2
-2
20
-1
-3
-2~|
1
S
1
j -6
0
2
! -a
31
0
«8
-19
-IS
5
(it
16
I
0
2
6
14
7
5
12
-6
-9
S
35
7
11
7
8
15
7
~r
..v
-5
4
20
i r
.
5
3
28
-5
. -S
!
2
24
40
9
12
■_•§_
3 ;
1
j 7
30
13
6
-i
'
-3
-18
•I
-17
j -4
8
6
4
11
8
9
18
RPA
Updated: 2/18/10
GOSA APSMCKEE 000003
Elementary School Comparison for 2008 to 2009 CRCT
CD
J RED is equal to a decline in performance on CRCT.
Dark Green is equal to improved performance (4% or higher) on CRCT.
Bright Green is equal to slight improved performance (l%-3%) on CRCT.
Orange is equal to constant performance (0%) on CRCT.
Black Font = 25% or more of the classes within the grade-level are flagged.
(f ot-
U of
% of
Classes
Classes
with a
#of
Flagged
Flagged
mean of 10
SchooltUamG
srrr
Classes
_WTR
_WTTt
or more
AVP
Target
FINCH ELEMENT
i
75
36
42.0%
a
D[3)
FICKETT ELEME
l
72
37
51.456
1
D|5)
63%
WEST MANOR EL
1
51
28
54.3%
4
LI IS)
93%
BOYD ELEMENTA
4
57
32
56.1%
1
0(7)
37%
D H STANTON E
2
48
28
5S.356
0
D (9)
63%
WHJTEFOORD EL
3
54
32
593%
0
Pis)
44%
WOODSON ELEME
4
60
38
633%
2
rj (5)
44%
TOWNS ELEMENT
4
SS
42
63.6%
3
D (5)
52%
PERKERSON ELE
1
72
48
BG.7%
A
D(l)
74%
BLALOCK ELEME
4
39
26
66.756
f
D (4)
89%
SCOTT ELEMENT
4
75
51
68.0%
9
0(5)
67K
DUNBAR ELEMEM
2
m
35
0S.G5S
7
0 (5)
67%
CONNALLY ELEM
1
78
55
70.5%
7
D (G|
52%
CAPITOL VIEW
2
48
34
70.8%
5
D(7)
74%
VENETIAN HILL
1
69
52
75.4K
9
0(5)
70%
USHER ELEMENT
4
51
40
78.4%
1
D(5|
48%
F L STANTON
4
42
35
83.3%
D(7)
85%
PEYTON FOREST
1
72
62
86.1%
7
D (5)
93%
GIDEONS ELEME
2
69
61
EC.4%
7
D (6)
48%
-6
-14!
-14
-9
2"
-S
. 5
UJ
12
-*
-»
-S
s
-S
-t*>
12
2"'
is"
6
7
1
•
-3
-1
X
1
-3
_ -3_
"5
12
1
s
11
s
30
7
:; 2 '
9
-i
-S
-7
3
' 12
7~'
-6
2
—
-18
0
-10
-35
-J,
0
2
-ifi
0
3"
' -s
3
16
i
•&
-10
'-id
S
. • .
5'
-1
-1
_ *
0
i 4
19
-10
" 5 '
1
-3
28
-is
-s
. *
■y
-I
i 2
10
3
7
7
18
is
•7
-IT
-5
IT
-B
3
5
6
15
13
6
•4
7
7
"13
■ 2
20
37
S
47
4
3
3
■
8
7
16
7
11
27
3
1
5 j
9
10
9
-S
JL
8
H
13
2
3
-3'
:. 9:
7
11
13
3
5
9
1
4
6
28.
-17
17
-13
"-26
13
e
i .
5
10
1
4
-g
1
2
5
2
L* ,
10
-6
0
~Z
-5 '
1
4
-3
1
1
1
0
0
9
0
■ 2
7,
0
. 5 ,
.J
-8
[ I
10
4
14
1
■ 11
10
11
";
-2
■9
' -1
0
5
3
17
8
16
14
1
jr
.4
>S'
-9
6
11
10
-io
1
"•40
2
3 !
0
4
8
3
"2
9
22
s
an
J 4
s
-1
1
11
-4 i
-1
2
1
-§
-3
5
-K
0
3
0
3
RPA
Updated: 2/1S/10
GOSA APS MCKEE 000004
Middle School £HCT Compaifison for 2008 to 2009,
[ j RED is equal to a decline in performance on CRCT.
i Dark Green is equal to improved performance (4% or higher} on CRCT.
i Bright Green is equal to slight Improved performance {l%-3%) on CRCT.
Orange is equal to constant performance (0%) on CRCT,
Black Font = 25% or more of the classes within the grade-level are flagged.
nof
sections
Uai
with a
Classes
% of Classes
mean of 10
Flagged_
FlfiggecMWT cr more
SchoolName
SEST
Classes
WTR
R
erasures
AVP
Target
RD6
LAS
MAS
FtD7
LA?
MA7
LAS MAS
YOUNG MIDDLE
l
114
13
11.4%
0
□ (3)
63%
,1
B
>".
5
5 27
rtnequate
LONG MIDDLES
2
97
12
124%
a
(made AYP)
56%
m
HARPER ARCHER
4
141
34
24.1%
15
Nl (4) No AYP
52%
0 j
6
38
2 ««
BENJAMIN S CA
4
30
9
30.0%
0
MA
NA
13
13 31
COAM MIDDLE 5
3
51
ie
31.4%
c
0(2)
15%
■5 !
4
-US
-J.S
mvM no
CRIM HIGH SCH
OHS
3
l
33.3%
s
AYP
NA
Adequate
KENNEDY MIDDJ.
1
7S
42
53.2%
1
(made AYP)
63%
3
5 ■
9
1
11
12
5 11
Nl (G) made
TURNER MIDDLE
4
63
34
SIMM
3
AYP
78%
15
17
4G
6
3
14
6
4 22
PARKS MIDDLE
2
57
51
89.5%
4
a (2)
48%
? .1
6 j
' .1? '
~s "1
5
RPA
Updated: 2/1S/1Q
GOSA_APS_MCKEE 000005
Charter School CRCT Comparison for 2D08 to 2009.
; RHP I! equal to a decline In performance on UK. ) .
Green h equaf lo improved performance {4% orhi^her) on CRCT.
Yellow is equal to s-tlg ^* improved performance [1%-3^J on CRCT,
Drange is equal lo constant peiformance [CM) on CRCT.
1/ of sections
with a mean of
II of Classes 54 of Cf assei 10 or more
SdiooiName (I of Classes Flaggedjil/Tn rtarjijccl \VTU erasures
UNIVERSITY CO 60 15 25.0%
AYI>
0
Target
NA
[IDl
2
[3
MAI
5
RD2
LA2
RD3
CD
CD
GOSA_APS_MCKEE 000001
g
o
LL!
e
5
o
CD
797
I the Governor's Office
■i of STUOEHT ACHIEVEMENT
Components of a Rigorous District-Level Investigation
A district's investigation of individual schools placed in moderate and severe concern categories in
response to the Office of Student Achievement's findings of the 2009 CRCT comprehensive analysis must
include the following components at a minimum.
I. Training
a. Provide a description of test administration training and to whom it was provided at
each flagged school.
b. Identify, by flagged school, who handled the materials in any way but did not receive
test administration training. Districts are expected to have written documentation that
details who received training.
II. Access to Test Materials
a. Determine and describe the manner in which test materials were distributed and
collected at each flagged school, detailing a) any discrepancies between this process and
the guidelines set forth by the GaDOE, and b) corrective action taken in response to
such discrepancies.
b. Determine and describe any irregularities found regarding the administration of the test
at each flagged school, including for example, test materials retained beyond the
allotted time according to the test manuals, etc., and corrective action taken in
response to such irregularities.
c. Determine which employees at each flagged school {including administrators, teachers,
clerical staff, counselors, paraprofessionals or other employees) had access to secure
test materials before and after testing during each day that test documents were kept in
the school building. Describe corrective action taken in response to employees other
than administrators handling secure test materials outside of actual test administration.
Determine whether any employee altered student responses on test documents at each
flagged school and describe how test tampering occurred and corrective action taken.
d. Determine and describe the manner in which test documents were transported from
each school in the moderate or severe concern categories to the central office after
testing concluded and prepared for the State's testing vendor. Determine whether any
employee altered student responses on test documents during this time and describe
how test tampering occurred as well as corrective action taken.
III. Variance In Erasure Data
a. Based on the investigation conducted by the LEA, describe what the district learned
about the test environment at each flagged school that explains why its erasure data
varies significantly from the rest of the State's testing population.
b. Describe the changes the district will make in its testing procedure based on what was
learned from the investigation, including how it will incorporate recommendations
made by the Office of Student Achievement.
Districts having fewer than five schools to investigate must submit a comprehensive narrative by school
to OSA by April 1, 2010, and those having more than five schools must submit their report to OSA by
May 14, 2010. OSA is happy to serve as a resource to districts in the course of their investigations.
798
§ the Governor's Gffsce
H $ STUDENT ACHIBVEMBNT
This document is intended to provide additional information to LEAs that govern schools placed in
moderate and severe concern levels as a result of the statewide 2009 CRCT erasure analysis.
Result Categories
OSA aggregated CTB-McGraw Hill's classroom-level flagging data to a school level to report the
percentage of classrooms flagged by school for having an unusually high number of wrong-to-right
{WTR) changes. Each school across the state was then placed into one of four categories: Clear of
Concern, Minimal Concern, Moderate Concern, and Severe Concern.
State Action
LEA Action
LEA Student Support
Severe Concern
(24.6% or more of
classrooms flagged)
State Monitors
during Spring
2010 CRCT
1) LEA conducts an investigation to
identify causes of irregularities and
corrective action taken as necessary.
2) Submit results of investigation to OSA
3) Rotate teachers during CRCT.
1) Notify parents of irregularities
found as necessary
2) Offer student support services
as appropriate based on
outcomes of LEA investigation
Moderate Concern
(10.6% -24.4% of
classrooms flagged)
Random Spot
Checks by State
Monitors
1) LEA conducts an investigation to
identify causes of irregularities and
corrective action taken as necessary.
2) Submit results of investigation to OSA
3) Rotate teachers during CRCT,
4) Monitor test environment.
1) Notify parents of irregularities
found as necessary
2) Offer student support services
as appropriate based on
outcomes of LEA investigation
Minimal Concern
(5.5%-10.4% of
classrooms flagged)
N/A
1) LEA to monitor test environment of
flagged schools; OR
2} LEA to rotate teachers in flagged
schools.
1) Offer student support services
as appropriate based on any
concerning irregularities found.
Clear of Concern
(0-5.4% of
classrooms flagged)
N/A
N/A
N/A
To save LEAs the trouble of calculating percentages by school, OSA has posted a complete file here.
Investigation Resources
LEAs with schools placed in moderate and severe levels of concern must conduct a rigorous
investigation of those schools that conforms to guidelines (shared with superintendents on 2/12/10) to
determine the cause of testing irregularities. In general, the bigger the flag in any given classroom, the
more pressing the need for substantial explanation as to why that classroom's wrong-to-right (WTR)
changes varied so significantly from the rest of the state's testing population for that grade and
subject.
799
I ^ Governor's Offuce
$ STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Both OSA and the Professional Standards Commission (PSC) are available as resources to LEAs before,
during, and after the investigative process. The Excel files that have been shared with LEAs contain
detailed information that provides a picture of each tested classroom. For example, looking at the 50th
percentile data (P50) of a flagged classroom shows that half of the students in that class had that
number (or more) of wrong-to-right changes. In addition, the total number of WTR changes in each
classroom also provides insight into how pervasive the irregularities were among students in that
classroom.
Investigations must be conducted by personnel from the LEA central office, the local board, or a
qualified third party skilled in audit and fraud examination, rather than data analysis. The erasure
analysis includes detailed quantitative data which suggests that testing irregularities, while not a
certainty, are more likely to have occurred in the schools in the Moderate and Severe Concern
categories than in other Georgia schools. The main purpose of LEA investigations is to determine
whether any irregularities in process occurred regarding test administration, collection, security, etc.
This requires qualitative work, such as interviews and analysis of documentation regarding test
administration training, dissemination and collection, etc.
Schools, including principals, cannot investigate themselves. OSA has received requests from LEAs for
names of local experts in this field. Some reputable firms known for this type of work include:
KPMG
Chuck Riepenhoff, Managing Director Forensic, 404.222.3239
Joseph Sullivan, Managing Director Forensic, icsullivanfgkpmg.com 404.222.3262
Earl Fagan, Jr., Director Forensics, efaganp)kpmg.com 404.222.7375
Melvin Benson, Director Forensics, melvinbenson(5>kpmE,com 404.222.3333
Deloltte
Randy Stellwag, rstel I wa e@ d el oitte. co m 215.246.2399
Jim Lombardo, Director of Forensic and Dispute Services, iimlombardo@deloitte.com 203.436.3086
Daniel Zielke, Director, 404.220.1973
Ernst and Young
Steven Kuzma, 404.817.4280
Richard Corgel, 213.977.4222
Pricewaterhouse Coopers
Julie Garlock, Director, 678.419.8721
Erik Skramstad, Head of U.S. fraud and investigations, 617.530.6156
Please note that OSA does not have relationships with any of these firms; the information is provided
simply as a potential appropriate resource for LEAs to consider.
800
The GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
sfSTumm achievement
The Georgia Department of Audits might also be able to provide LEAs with guidance on how to approach
this type of investigation.
Investigation Timeline
As mentioned in the investigation guidelines (emailed to superintendents on 2/12/10), LEAs with fewer
than five schools to investigate should email their finai reports to OSA by April 1; those with five or more
schools to investigate can email their reports to OSA as late as May 14. OSA will review the reports to
determine whether the investigations were rigorous and thorough and bring satisfactory resolve to the
state's concerns.
local Monitors during Spring 2010 CRCT
Schools placed in moderate concern must have a monitor from the LEA central office during the spring
2010 CRCT administration. The responsibilities of that monitor include:
1. Ensuring that everyone in the building who will handle test materials or proctor the test
environment has been trained on test administration procedures.
2. Ensuring that only certified personnel handle tests.
3. Verifying that there is a secure room in which to store test materials before and after testing,
and determining who has access to that room.
4. Ensuring that test manuals are kept secure until test day.
5. Observing test distribution and collection and making sure all test administration processes are
followed.
6. Spot checking first and second grade classrooms during test time to confirm that questions and
answers are not being read to students with unnecessary tone and inflection.
7. Ensuring that test materials are returned promptly each day after the allotted test time has
expired.
8. Documenting and reporting any observed irregularities.
9. Ensuring that test materials are organized and prepared appropriately for transport to the
central office.
10. Confirming that materials arrive at the central office repository as they were shipped from the
local school, and that materials are packaged appropriately for transport to the test vendor.
Rotate Teachers during Spring 2010 CRCT
Schools placed in moderate and severe levels of concern must also rotate teachers during the spring
2010 CRCT so that teachers do not administer the test to students they've taught. OSA strongly
suggests that, where possible:
1. Teachers administer the CRCT to students of a grade level they do not currently teach;
2. First and second grade teachers administer the CRCT to students of other grade levels.
In addition, schools should keep records of these rotation assignments.
801
| the Governor's Office
$ (/STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
LEAs may decide between sending central office monitors or rotating teachers at schools of minimal
concern.
Parent Notification and Student Support Services
In cases where an LEA determines that test tampering has occurred, the LEA must communicate to
parents who have children currently enrolled in that school what was learned in the course of the
investigation. The communication should detail any support services that the LEA wilt make available to
students who may have beeVi adversely affected and how parents can access those services for their
children.
State Monitors
The state will place monitors at schools in the severe concern category to help ensure that test
administration is handled according to guidelines set forth by the GaDOE. Information in addition to
what's listed below will be provided to LEAs prior to the test window regarding what they can expect
from state monitors.
1. State monitors will arrive 1-2 days before testing begins to meet the principal and test
coordinator. They will a} make certain that test manuals are sealed, b) inspect the locked and
secured area where test materials are stored, and c) become acquainted with the building and
testing assignments.
2. Monitors will be well trained in test procedures, will be on-site during each day of testing
(including make-ups), ensure that materials are distributed, collected, and stored securely, and
transported securely to the central office.
3. Monitors will also be present at the central office to confirm that appropriate security
procedures are used for preparing and shipping materials to the test vendor.
OSA Contacts
LEAs should contact OSA at any point in this process with questions. Please call the main line,
404-463-1150, and ask to speak with Kathleen Mathers, Eric Wearne, or Adrian Neely.
802
From: Bill McCargo
To: Renay Blumenthal
Sent: 2/20/201 0 7:34:14 AM
Subject: Re: Draft plan of action - APS issue
Renay you nailed it. Do we want to outline the role of the independent "third party" testing expert, and what they would
do?
IE 1. review data from CBT, Porter, and the school system to determine logical prospective schools to review more closely in
the forensic audit.
2. Review existing testing security, plus the governors new requirements and suggest additional best in practice methods
that would immediately employed in the next round of testing.
3. Conduct the forensic audit related to determining the root cause of widespread erasures, to determine if test taking
methods such as "PIRATE" or any other explanation could surface that could have caused such a wide spread incidence of
erasures..
Additional I think your list of candidates is strong except Chandra has a very firm opinion that the legislature need not to
be represented on the actual board, but kept informed, as would be the case of other key stakeholder groups such as the
Georgia school board and probably the Governors office of accountability.
Lets talk more tomorrow about next steps.
Super work. Your partner Bill
On 2/19/10 4:23 PM, "Renay Blumenthal" <rblurnenthal(5)macoc.conri> wrote:
My apologies — use this version - I added one more name to the list
Metro
Atlanta ^
Renay Blumenthal
Settlor Vice President, Public Policy
Metro Ada nta Chamber
Z35 Andrew Young International Blvd.NW • Atlanta, GA 30303
104.5S6.S466 • FAX 404.5S6.S427
rblumenthaltgrnacoccom <malltoTblumenthal@mgCQC.com>* www.Metr0AtlantaOjiamber.cD:rn <lit tp ://www.rnetroatlantach amber.com>
Subscribe to the MAC Monthly Newsletter <http://www.metroatlantachanriber.corn/subscnbe/:>
Bringing the best together to help Atlanta thrive.
From: Renay Blumenthal
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:19 PM
To: Bill McCargo (billrsatlef.org>: Sam A. Williams; 'iohn.rice@fie,com'
Subject: Draft plan of action - APS issue
Attached is a first draft of plan of action to include broadly-stated scope of work, roles of the various entities, and suggested names for
a Blue Ribbon task force.
Bill and I had very good and lengthy conversations today with the principal from the firm, American Institutes for Research that Gates
recommended to us. We provided him the state's report, the investigation requirements from state that are due May 14 and talked
briefly about the Porter and other previous studies. He is a scientist and researcher who understands the education world and has
very good political instincts and helped us assess the "what" of an investigation. He quickly surmised the situation and suggested to
us "we have a leadership issue, not a data issue." He said if he were Hall, he would:
1. Say strongly I'm going to acton it (and not ask for more data)
2. Put in place procedures to minimize and detect cheating
3. Take the schools with the highest number of erasures and do a forensic audit and show a real commitment to taking the state's
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_002624
803
data seriously
Metro
Atlanta ^
Chamber W
Renay Blumentihal
Senior Vfce Preaitfent, Public PollGy
Metro Atlanta Chamber
235 Andrew Young International Blvd.NW • Atlanta, GA 303O3
404.5B6.B*66 • FAX404-.S86.8427
rbliirnenthal@macoc.ccrn <marito:rblumenchal(g>iriacoc.corn> • wvuw.MctroAtlantaChamber.com <http ://www.metrQatlantachambcf .com>
Subscribe to Che MAC Monthly Newsletter ^http://www.mstroatiantachamber. com/subscribe/^
Bringing the best together to help Atlanta thrive. ^
Bill McCargo
President
Atlanta Education Fund
250 Williams Street - Suite 2115
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-539-5553 - mobile
404-585-3407 - office
404-221-0892 -facsimile
bill@atlef.org
Far the latest in Atlanta's Education News,
sign up for the AEF Newsletter
<http:/Msitor. constantcontact. cam/email.isp?m = 1 101938229580>
Follow the AEF on Twitter:
http-J/twitter. com/atief
804
GOSA_APS_AEF_EL_002625
Con fideiitial
Draft
For Discussion Purposes Only
Exhibit 6 - Other Observations
Culture of Pressure from School Administrators
The Investigators noted through the interviews that there is a culture of pressure, fear, and intimidation at
some schools, driven down by the Principals. The following specific observations were noted:
• Reports of faculty meetings at the beginning of the school year where the CRCT results for each
teacher's class in the school are put on the board for everybody to see
5* Venetian Hills Elementary
> Kennedy Middle
> King Middle
• Reports of teachers being yelled at by Administrators
> Kennedy Middle
> King Middle
• Report of teachers being approached by the Principal to meet targets or face not having their contracts
renewed
> Kennedy Middle
• Reports of Principals having "in crowds" of teachers who are believed to have special relationships
with the Principals
> Venetian Hills Elementary
> Kennedy Middle
• Report of a Principal being described as "intimidating,, unhappy, bitter, angry, vengeful, and
vindictive," and that it is believed die Principal would use any means necessary to achieve her
professional goals
> Venetian Hills F.lementary
• Reports of teachers having to include recess in their lesson plans although they were required to use
the recess time to teach information for the CRCT. The lesson plans were required to be submitted to
thelLS.
> Kennedy Middle
Pressure to Obtain Test Scores
The Investigators noted that Principals may be put on a professional development plan for declines in
scores for one year. If there is a subsequent year of score declines, Principals may be terminated.
CONFIDENTIAL
805
KPMG-ESI-00 13244
Through, the interview process, it was reported that a Principal who in a prior year made great
improvements in the school's CRCT scores now feels pressure to maintain those improved scores in
SLibscqucnl years.
> Kennedy Middle
Lack of Formal Documentation
The investigators noted that testing irregularities are not always formally documented. The following
specific observations were nqfed:
■ Report that at the school level, testing irregularities are not formally documented and there is not a
paper trail of communications from the teacher to the Administrators.
> Kennedy Middle
• At the District level, when testing irregularities are followed up upon through the appropriate
channels, the process is not consistently formally documented.
• Deviations in policies and schedules, such as approvals for delays in the return of test materials to the
Brewer Testing Center from the respective schools, are not formally documented.
CONFIDENTIAL
806
KPMG-ESI-0013245
Exhibit 6
Other Observations
*
During the interview process, a common theme emerged that, may indicate potential cultural issues
to be considered. Investigators noticed frequent expressions of concern including but not limited to
the following:
• Fear of job loss in the event of reporting violations and/or not meeting target goals
• Feeling intimidated by threats of being put on a development or performance plan
• Lack of faith in processes due to observation that development and performance plans do not
drive any type of change
• Being verbally abused for failure to meet metrics
• Inability to trust administrators or central office
• Being unduly pressured to meet test score requirements
807
GOSA_APS_CAVEON_0000472
Atlanta Public Schools ] CRCT Update
Page 1 of 1
' English to Spanish
Today's Date
Surety, June 12, 2011
HOME COMMUNITY DEPARTMENTS INSIDE APS MEDIA GALLERY PARENTS & STUDENTS SCHOOLS CALENDARS
August 2, 2010 - Statement from the Superintendent (BRC Report)
I accept the Blue Ribbon Commission Repot and thank the members for their considerable time and effort in this difficult
process.
I will review the report very carefully and will present to the Board of Education as they have requested steps that will be taken
to follow up on the recommendations in the report.
1 will not wait until August 16th to begin to make some immediate changes. As a matter of fact, we announced at the July Board
of Education meeting, strategies we will have in place on day one to help students who failed to meet standards on the 2010
LRU', l o ensure no child tails through the cracks we have created a 12-week individualized, accelerated academic recovery
program to make sure they catch up quickly and succeed this school year, After all, this is job one.
We have maintained all along that we will prosecute to the fullest any cases of cheating, and that remains our intent.
But we trust the medta and public will focus on the main findings of the report that there is no orchestrated
cheating in Atlanta Public Schools, that there are no low testing standards, that APS administrators demanded
high standards, and that under pressures some people may have compromised the credibility of the school system
and their own personal integrity to try to cut corners. We will insist that our testing standards are strictly
adhered to at every grade level.
The Blue Ribbon Commission Report makes it dear: "The investigative team did not find any data or other evidence, nor were
there qualified allegations made, thai there way any dislrict-wide or centrally coordinated effort to manipulate the 2009 CRCT
scores and outcomes of students at 53 APS schools."
If we are guilty of anything, we are guilty of demanding high standards of out students, teachers, and principals ™ and
unfortunately in any large organization, a few people may cheat to try to meet those demands.
We will ferret them out and the consequences will be severe.
Again, I will report to the Board of Education a full set of actions based on the Report's recommendations on August 16th as
requested.
Finally, to the thousands of employees who report to work in our schools and central office every day, I thank you for all that you
do and will continue to do for our 48 thousand students.
Thanks also to the parents and the community at large for your continued support and confidence in the students and staff of
APS.
CRCT Update
(Tjoverview
Jj^jBlue Ribhon Commission
[^[Superintendent (APS)
[TjFram the Atlanta Board of Education
[*Igosa
[_► ^Confidential Tip Line
ITJshare Your Thoughts With Lis
Our school system will clear this up and continue our focus on even greater student achievement over time.
Copyright © 2008 Atlanta Public Schools
Anti-Discrimination Policy 1 Terms of Use I TRUSTEe Approved Privacy Policy Questrons or Feedback?
130 Trinity Ave. Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 802-3500
http://www.atlanta.kl2.ga.us/1861 1021 5104457543/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=295963&C=5.
808
6/12/2011
Atlanta Public Schools | CRCT Update Page 1 of 1
B\glish la Spanish
Translate)
Today's Dace
Sunday, June 1Z, 2011
HOME COMMUNITY DEPARTMENTS INSIDE APS MEDIA GALLERY PARENTS & STUDENTS SCHOOLS CALENDARS
CRCT Update
(Tjovervlew
UBIue Ribbon Commission
(jJSuperintendent (APS)
JTjFrom the Atlanta Board of Education
Ugosa
(TJConfidential Tip Line
[TJshare Your Thoughts With Us
August 2, 2010 - Statement from the Superintendent (BRC Report)
I accept Che Blue Ribbon Commission Report and thank the members For their considerable time and effort In this difficult
process.
I will review the report very carefully and will present to the Board of Education as they have requested steps that will be taken
to folbw up on the recommendations In the report.
I will not wait until August 16th. to begin to make same immediate changes. As a matter of fact, we announced at the July Board
of Education meeting, strategies we will have in place on day one to help students who failed to meet standards on the Z010
CRCT. To ensure no child falls through the cracks we have created a lZ-week individualized, accelerated academic recovery
program to make sure they catch up quickly and succeed this school year. After all, this is job one.
We have maintained all along that we will prosecute to the fullest any cases of cheating, and that remains our intent.
But we trust the media and public will focus on the main findings of the report that there is no orchestrated
cheating in Atlanta Public Schools, that there are no low testing standards, that APS administrators demanded
high standards, and that under pressures some people may have compromised the credibility of the school system
and their own personal Integrity to try to cut corners. We will insist that our testing standards are strictly
adhered to at every grade level.
The Blue Ribbon Commission Report makes it clean "The investigative team did not find any data or other evidence, nor were
there qualified allegations made, that there was any district-wide or centrally coordinated effort to manipulate the 2009 CRCT
scores and outcomes of students at 58 APS schools."
If we are guilty of anything, wc are guilty of demanding high standards of our students, teachers, and principals - and
unfortunately In any large organization, a few people may cheat to try to meet those demands.
We will ferret them out and the consequences will be severe.
Again, I will report to the Board of Education a full set of actions based on the Report's recommendations on August 16th as
requested.
Finally, to the thousands of employees who report to work in our schools and central office every day, I thank you for all that you
do and will continue to do for our 48 thousand students.
Thanks also to the parents and the community at large for your continued support and confidence In the students and staff of
APS.
Our school system will clear this up and continue our focus on even greater student achievement over time.
Copyright © 2008 Atlanta Public Schools Ouestians or Feedback'
Anti-Discrimination Policy I Terms of Use | TRUSTEe Approved Privacy Policy liuestians or reeanac*.
130 Trinity Ave. Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (104) 80Z-3500
http://www.atlanta.kl2.ga.us/186110215104457543/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=295963&C=5... 6/12/2011
809
Atlanta Public Schools I News
Page 1 of 1
' English Id Spanish
Today's Date
Sunday, June 12, 2011
HOME COMMUNITY DEPARTMENTS INSIDE APS MEDIA GALLERY PARENTS & STUDENTS SCHOOLS CALENDARS
Principals at schools on Blue Ribbon Commission report reassigned, 108 employees
referred to PSC
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
News
I+Jrhe Atlanta Educator
(TJ^PS Reading Room
B+|APS News Releases
i_jHot Topics
(jjHot Topics Archives
[)jNews Update Online
UAPS Coal Kids
AUGUST 6, 2010
Principals at schools on Blue Ribbon Commission report
reassigned, 108 employees referred to PSC
ATLANTA— Having had the opportunity to fully review the Blue Ribbon Comnission
(BRC) report, Superintendent Dr. Beverly L Hall today ordered the immediate reassignment of
the principals at the 12 Category 1 schools referred to in the BRC report as being of concern for
possible violations associated with the administration of the 2009 Criterion-Referenced
Competency Test (CRCT). These reassignments are pending the outcome of the investigation.
The district also plans to refer 108 APS employees to the Georgia Professional Standards
Commission (PSC) next Monday. These are the employees who were recommended for further
investigation in the BRC report. One of the individuals named in the report, who does not hold
an educator certificate, is not being referred to the PSC, because the commission only
investigates certificated employees. That investigation will be coordinated by APS.
The district has already put into place specific actions recommended by BRC investigators,
including new testing policies and test security procedures that were implemented prior to the
administration of the 2010 CRCT exam. APS on Monday will launch a 12-week accelerated
academic recovery program for certain students at the schools singled out by the state for
concern because of the number of erasures on be 2009 CRCT exam.
###
Copyright © 2008 Atlanta Public Schools
Anti-Discrimination Policy | Terms of Use | TRUSTte Appro\/ed Privacy Policy
130 Trinity Ave. Atlanta, 6A 30303 Phone: (40*) 80Z-3500
Questions or Feedback?
http://www.atlantapublicscriools.us/l 861 10111 81 13928800/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=29603... 6/12/201 1
810
/ ATLANTA
' PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
Office of the Superintendent
Beverly L. Hall, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Phona: 404-802-2820
Fax: 404-802-1803
Making A Difference
August9, 2010
Dr. Gary Walker, Director
Georgia Professional Standards Commission
TEducator Ethics Divisions
Two Peaqhtree Street - Suite 6000 i
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Dr. Walker:
As you know, aru independent Blue Ribbon Commission ("BRC") was authorized by tile Atlanta Board of
Education to investigate the 2009 Spring CRCT erasure analysis findings of Hie Governor's Office of Student
Achievement (GOSA). The BRC issued its report which included the referral of one hundred eight (108)1
certificated personnel for further investigation by APS. We are forwarding all 108 of these individuals to the
PSC for review and investigation of alleged testing irregularities. The individuals are listed with other
identifying information on the attached spreadsheet
The BRC Report delineates referrals based on either a qualified allegation or a Caveon index score of greater
than or equal to 4.0 for individuate. To further explain: a qualified allegation is an allegation of a specific
situation in which cheating is alleged to have occurred during the 2009 CRCT administration and data exists
which tends to support the allegation {see the Blue Ribbon Commission Report, page 14). The Caveon
index is a calculation that indicates the overall probability that test outcomes — given erasure patterns - were
random (see the BRC report pages 11-12). You may download the BRC report together with all exhibits and
appendices at our website, which is www.atlantapublicschools.U5.
The referred individuals are listed on the attached spreadsheet and are either the subject of a qualified
allegation and/or have a Caveon index greater than or equal to 4.0. Additionally, all administrators of the 12
Category I schools listed in the Report are included among the 108 certificated individuals referred by the
BRC to APS for further investigation, regardless of whether they had a qualified allegation. Their inclusion
resulted from the Caveon index finding for their individual schools.
In its report the BRC also recommended that the District conduct follow-up regarding an additional one
hundred twenty-two (122) people. At this time, the District plans to conduct those reviews and/or
investigations internally and will take appropriate action.
We anticipate that your office will need to conduct interviews and speak with various District personnel. We
look forward to working cooperatively and collaboratively with yuu and your investigative team. If you have
any questions or need our assistance, please contact Veleter Mazyck, General Counsel, 404-602-2832.
Beverly L. flail, Superintendent
Enclosure
cc: Veleter Mazyck, General Counsel
1 The BRC Report referenced 109 individuals; however, the District determined that one individual serves in a position
that does not require a certificate and is not certificated.
Atlanta Public Schools * 1 3D Trinity Avenue, S.W. • Atlanta, GA 3D303 * 404-802-3500
www.atlanti3publicschoal6.us
O1-0B-O2O
GOSA/APS/PSC 000001
811
Subject:
From:
To:
CC:
Sent:
Renay Blumenthal
William Teasley; Samra Coote; Esther Campi; Terri Bradley
Gary Price; Bill McCargo; Melissa Solomon
8/5/2010 5:18:11 PM
RE: COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
I've got a retrsat with my staff tomorrow so will not be able to join. My advice would be:
1) Focus on getting GOSA to understand and accept the report. The media and the rogue board
members are annoying and distracting at best, but what will really make us dead in the water is if
GOSA and the Gov discredit and/or not accept the report. We knew all along there could potentially be
an odd alliance of some of the, board members, the media and the Gov's office - the first two are
playing out; we really need to'focus all of our energies right now on the latter and as soon as possible.
And if GOSA understands and accepts the report, you've pulled the stinger out of whatever the media
and board members could say next.
2) Get to a graceful exit strategy quickly for both the Gov and Hall. Specifically, assuming item 1
above is successful, let the Gov say the BR.C provided a terrific roadmap that he is referring
immediately to the PSC. And then let Hall say she agrees and welcomes the PSC's involvement and
expertise.
Frankly, I think Ed Holcombe and Nels Peterson are sympathetic to what we're up against. The Gov trusts and
listens to them and I think we could finesse this thru them. 3ust my 2 cents worth....
From: William Teasley [mailto:william@atlef.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 3:29 PM
To: Samra Coote; Esther Campi; Terri Bradley
Cc: Gary Price; Bill McCargo; Melissa Solomon; Renay Blumenthal
Subject: COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Dear Communications Team:
Over the next few weeks I would like to re-convenethe Communications Team to discuss strategies to address the media
attention thatthe report and BRC is receiving. As indicated from the article posted this morning, as well as others, there
may be a need to have prepared, succinct responses to challenges of the BRC's integrity and report quality.
Your guidance and energy was crucial throughout the report development process. I would like to ask for your guidance and
energy again as we work to maintain control of and manage the message in the coming weeks.
I will be sending a Conference Call meeting request for tomorrow shortly.
Thanks in advance.
William Teasley
Director of Research-Evaluation
Atlanta Education Fund
Metro
Atlanta
Chamber
Renay Blumenthal
SeniorVics President, Public Policy
Metro Atlanta Chamber
235 Andrew Young International Blvd.,NW • Atlanta, GA 30303
404.586.S466 • FAX 404.586.8427
rblumentha Kffimacoc.com » www.MetroAtlantaChamber.com
Subscribe to the MAC Monthly Newsletter
Bringing the best together to help Atlanta thrive.
GOSA APS AEF EL 008662
812
250 Williams Street, Suite 2115
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404-653-5558 - office
404-221-0892 - facsimile
404-539-0373 - mobile
williamfSatlef.ore
For the latest in Atlanta's Education News,
sign up for the AEF Newsletter
<http://vi5itor.constantcontact,com/email,isp?m=11019382295SO>
Follow the AEF on Twitter and Facebook:
http ://twi tter.com/atl ef
www.facebook.com/atlantaeducatianfurid
813
GOSA_APS__AEF_EL_008663
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11